[Bug 476310] Review Request: pyifp - Python Bindings for libifp
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Mar 10 04:28:04 UTC 2009
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=476310
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 #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2009-03-10 00:28:03 EDT ---
This one builds cleanly and rpmlint is quiet. Not sure why I'm the first
person to look at it.
Could the %description perhaps grow some description of what "iFP" is? It's
not a big deal, but it would have been nice to not have had to look it up.
I haven't the hardware to test this, but nobody else with hardware has shown up
to review it, so....
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
df283d037ee206ede1de7e058022a7cd13d55c4d935323c3ae3af923b39f8ff3
pyifp-0.2.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
X description could use a bit of elucidation.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
_ifp_core.so()(64bit)
_usb_core.so()(64bit)
pyifp = 0.2.2-1.fc11
pyifp(x86-64) = 0.2.2-1.fc11
=
/usr/bin/python
libifp.so.4()(64bit)
libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit)
libusb-0.1.so.4()(64bit)
python(abi) = 2.6
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* 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
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
APPROVED
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list