Bug 495237

- Why do you

sed -i '/^import\ ez_setup$/,+1 d' setup.py

Please add a comment about this.


- Instead of
%{python_sitelib}/*
use
%{python_sitelib}/hash_ring/
%{python_sitelib}/hash_ring-%{version}-*.egg-info

**

rpmlint output is clean.


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSFIX
- The license is BSD, not GPLv2.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK

SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX
- The BSD license is not included.

SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

**

Fix the above and I'll approve the package.

Thanks for the review Jussi.

I added a comment to the spec regarding the sed, but in short the removed code checks to see if setuptools is installed and downloads+installs it if not. If you don't remove it the build will fail.

I will send a request upstream for the license file to be included.

Diff: http://code.google.com/p/silassewell/source/diff?spec=svn227&r=227&format=side&path=/trunk/projects/packages/rpms/python-hash_ring/python-hash_ring.spec

SRPM: http://silassewell.googlecode.com/files/python-hash_ring-1.2-2.fc10.src.rpm

rpmlint

[silas@silas result]$ rpmlint python-hash_ring-1.2-2.fc10.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[silas@silas result]$ rpmlint python-hash_ring-1.2-2.fc10.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Whoops, I thought I had already approved this so didn't check this. Sorry for the unnecessary delay.

APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: python-hash_ring
Short Description: Python implementation of consistent hashing
Owners: silas
Branches:
InitialCC:

cvs done.

Built.

Thanks Jussi and Kevin.