[Bug 497572] Review Request: peppy - Editor written in python

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497572





--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-04-24 17:47:29 EDT ---
- Don't refer to "I" or "me" in the %description.

- Add Requires: python-enchant to get the spell checking part working.

rpmlint output:
peppy.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/c.c
peppy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/c-shell_script.csh 0644
peppy.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/cpp.cpp
peppy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/octave.oct 0644
peppy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/perl.pl 0644
peppy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/ruby.rb 0644
peppy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/d.d 0644
peppy.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/caml.ml
peppy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/tcl_tk.tcl 0644
peppy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/korn_shell_script.ksh 0644
peppy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/peppy/editra/tests/python.python 0644
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 3 warnings.

- Add executable flags to the non-executable-script files, that way at the end
you only get 3 devel-file-in-non-devel-package warnings that cannot be
circumvented.

- Package does not install. This is caused by
 peppy/editra/tests/octave.oct:#! /bin/octave -qf
in which /bin/octave should be /usr/bin/octave. The requirement on octave is,
however, quite odd. The package also requires csh and ksh due to the example
files. I'd sed the shebangs out of those files, since at least octave pulls in
a lot of stuff.

- Add -O1 to the setup.py install arguments.

- The line
 mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/{applications,pixmaps}
is not needed since both desktop-file-install and install -D create the
directories.


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. NEEDSFIX
- You are mixing $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. This is not allowed: choose
one and stick with it.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSFIX
- Add also PKG-INFO to %doc.

MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.