Bug 226333

BLOCKER: spec filename is not %{name}.spec

From the review guidelines:
  MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec

Fixed in pygtk2-2.10.3-8.fc7.

Stalled review

I will revies this one

Source: should be 
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/pygtk/2.12/pygtk-%{version}.tar.bz2

to make it easier to see where the upstream source comes from.

MUST:
* Package is matching naming guidelines.
* spec file in named %{name}.spec 
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible have the right good license shortname : LGPLv2+
* License file must be in %doc (it it exists)
* Spec file is written in American English
* Spec file is legible.
* Sources match upstream.
  MD5SUM:
  a816346d750d61e3fa67a200e4292694 
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/pygtk/2.12/pygtk-2.12.1.tar.bz2
  a816346d750d61e3fa67a200e4292694  pygtk-2.12.1.tar.bz2

* summary and description fine
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* changelog format fine 
* Packager/Vendor/Distribution/Copyright tags not used
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* Package compiles and build into RPM's on : i386 etc.
* no Exclude Arch 
* BuildRequires for all build requerements (- the ones on the Exception list)
* no locales 
* no shared libs 
* Package own all created directories.
* No duplicate files in %files 
* Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line
* Package has a %clean with a rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
* consistently use of macros
* Package contains code or or permissable content.
* Large documentation files goes into -doc subpackage.
* files in %doc dont affect runtime.
* header files goes into -devel subpackage
* no static libs
* package has pkgconfig (.pc) files and has a 'Requires: pkgconfig' 
* -devel subpackage has a 'Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}' 
* *.la libtool archives are removed in spec (if available)
* not a gui application 
* package don't own files and dirs owned by other packages.
* %install starts with an rm -rf %{buildroot} 
* rpm package filenames is in valid UTF-8.
* no Rpath 
* no config files
* no init scripts 
* no %makeinstall used
* no Requires(pre,post)

rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint pygtk2-2.12.1-3.fc9.i386.rpm 
pygtk2.i386: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/pygtk-demo/pygtk-demo.in "@PYTHON@"
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/stock_browser.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/dnd.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/ui_manager.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/statusicon.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/images.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/buttonbox.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/sizegroup.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/hypertext.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/list_store.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/changedisplay.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/textview.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/dialogs.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/menu.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/pygtk-demo.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/tree_store.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/panes.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/expander.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/pixbufs.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/appwindow.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/editable_cells.py
0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/colorsel.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/NEWS
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/entry_completion.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/treemodel.py 0644
pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/ide/browse.py /usr/bin/env
pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/ide/gtkcons.py /usr/bin/env
pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/ide/gtkdb.py /usr/bin/env
pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/ide/gtkprof.py /usr/bin/env
pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/ide/pyide.py /usr/bin/env
pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/simple/hello.py /usr/bin/env
pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/simple/scribble.py /usr/bin/env
pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/simple/simple.py /usr/bin/env
pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/simple/tooltip.py /usr/bin/env

$ rpmlint pygtk2-devel-2.12.1-3.fc9.i386.rpm 
pygtk2-devel.i386: W: no-documentation

$ rpmlint pygtk2-libglade-2.12.1-3.fc9.i386.rpm 
pygtk2-libglade.i386: W: no-documentation

$ rpmlint pygtk2-doc-2.12.1-3.fc9.i386.rpm 

$ rpmlint pygtk2-2.12.1-3.fc9.src.rpm 

nothing dangerous in these messages, i think they can be ignored.

APPROVED.

Thanks Tim, fixed the Source tag in pygtk2-2.12.1-4.fc9.

I'll wait to push a new package until I have a more significant update.

Setting status to MODIFIED, please close the bug if you're satisfied.

Fine with me closing bug.

With pygtk2-2.16.0-3:

I'm not sure, you create and fill %{_libdir}/pygtk, does that apply to this as well: 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.

This line surprised me a bit:
> %patch0 -p1
we add also a ".something" at the end of it.

Nonetheless, the above are rather questions, than issues, so the package is still good. (the new review points to the same bug, so I used it)