Bug 245743
| Summary: | Review Request: python-isprelink - Python module to determine if a file has been prelinked | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jeffrey C. Ollie <jeff> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-07-02 20:17:50 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Jeffrey C. Ollie
2007-06-26 13:16:02 UTC
There doesn't seem to be a version 0.1.2 upstream; all I can find is 0.1.1. Well, they have some 0.1.2 RPMs up for CentOS, but I can't find an actual tarball. Yeah, the updated tarball was emailed to me and to the mainatiner of the FTP site but the maintainer of the FTP site hasn't uploaded it yet. Hopefully that will happen RSN. OK, just ping me when the source is publically available and we'll finish this off. ? source files match upstream * 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 included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: isprelink.so()(64bit) python-isprelink = 0.1.2-1.fc8 = libelf.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.5.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) = 2.5 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * 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 scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs 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. Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/7/SRPMS/python-isprelink-0.1.2-2.fc7.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/7/SRPMS/python-isprelink-0.1.2-2.fc7.src.rpm The tarball got uploaded to the FTP server but it was different from the one I was using. The main difference is that there's no copy of the GPL included in the tarball but the code includes the appropriate disclaimer. I've requested that they include the GPL with the next release. OK, everything looks good to me now. I guess one important lesson is to never trust upstream to do something sensible. 8c1f6bd83fe4298909f86af30c84ead18318935d9965539c56909ec390f5e6d1 isprelink-0.1.2.tar.gz and now we have * license text not included upstream. APPROVED Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: python-isprelink Short Description: Python module to determine if a file has been prelinked Owners: jeff Branches: devel F-7 FC-6 EL-5 EL-4 InitialCC: cvs done. Packages imported and builds submitted. |