[Bug 508188] Review Request: pywbem - Python WBEM Client and Provider Interface

[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=508188


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-06-27 02:33:43 EDT ---
I've given up on the other ticket and have closed it.  I'll go ahead and take
care of this one.  Hopefully in the future the legal issue preventing an HP
employee from signing the CLA will be resolved and the submitter of that ticket
(who is one of the upstream developers) can co-maintain.

As in the other review, I would urge some elaboration of the acronym stew that
is the description.

You could drop BuildRequires: python, although it doesn't hurt anything to have
it.

Are you sure it's wise to rename the executables?  Of course, the other review
renamed the executables to mofcomp and pywbemcli, so perhaps there's simply no
standard for the names of these executables.  Maybe it's worth checking with
upstream about this.

twisted_client.py seems to depends on python-twisted; should that be a runtime
dependency?


* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:                   
   414f2cebabc0824e1d834809a27842cf698af19b23b61691a4ee76105b9cdcbd  pywbem-
   0.7.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
* description is OK.                                                          
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (BR: python is unnecessary but not harmful).
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   pywbem = 0.7.0-1.fc12
  =
   python(abi) = 2.6

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

-- 
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.