[Bug 485617] Review Request: pygrace - Python bindings for grace

[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=485617





--- Comment #4 from Joseph Smidt <jsmidt at fedoraproject.org>  2009-02-16 22:38:11 EDT ---
I believe this package looks pretty good.  I just have one comment.

[?] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

 I do not see any license in the source other than GPLv2 mentioned in
grace_np.py.  This is at odds with Upstream's website.  Please contact upstream
to clear this up.

[x] The package must be named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption
[x] The package must meet the  Packaging Guidelines .
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines.
[x?] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
(I am confused what the actual liscense should be since only GPLv2 is
represented in the source code, but website claim matches .spec)
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
[x] The spec file must be written in American English.
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[x] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. 
[x] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
[x] If the package is designed to be relocatable,
[x] A package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. 
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly. 
(rpmlint complains, but I belive 0644 are correct for python modules in
%{python_sitelib})
[x] Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
[x] Each package must consistently use macros. 
[x] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
[x] Header files must be in a -devel package.
[x] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[x] Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[x] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[x] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: 
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
[x] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, 
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[x] At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}

[x] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[x] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency.
[x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
[x] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.

-- 
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.