Bug 710194

I will take this review.

I like the "pygmy" suggestion. :-)  Unless you plan on using the same spec file with EPEL, some elements of the spec file can be removed: the python_sitelib definition at the top, BuildRoot, "rm -rf %{buildroot}" at the top of %install, the %clean script, and %defattr in %files.

+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
N: not applicable

MUST:
[+] rpmlint output: shown in comment 1 (slightly different spelling
suggestions, but otherwise identical on my machine)
[-] follows package naming guidelines: according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 this package should be named python-tepache.
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license
[+] license field matches the actual license
[N] license file is included in %doc
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum is b7a560d05a96f9cd7e374ef74a36c8cb for both
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64)
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[N] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[=] query upstream for license text
[N] description and summary contains available translations
[+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386
[+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64
[+] package functions as described: minimal testing only
[+] sane scriptlets
[N] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts

(In reply to comment #2)
> Unless you plan on using the same spec file
> with EPEL, some elements of the spec file can be removed: the python_sitelib
> definition at the top, BuildRoot, "rm -rf %{buildroot}" at the top of %install,
> the %clean script, and %defattr in %files.

I was aware of everything except the "rm -rf..." in install and the %defattr. Have the packaging guidelines been updated to reflect all of this?

> [-] follows package naming guidelines: according to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29
> this package should be named python-tepache.

Hmm... The only problem I see is that tepache isn't a module but a end user script. SimpleGladeApp.py is the module. 

I don't really care one way of the other personally, as it will work for PySDM either way, but I worry that someone installing python-tepache will be expecting a module instead of a executable...

What do you think?

Richard

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Unless you plan on using the same spec file
> > with EPEL, some elements of the spec file can be removed: the python_sitelib
> > definition at the top, BuildRoot, "rm -rf %{buildroot}" at the top of %install,
> > the %clean script, and %defattr in %files.
> 
> I was aware of everything except the "rm -rf..." in install and the %defattr.
> Have the packaging guidelines been updated to reflect all of this?

Never mind... I found them. It could be a little more explicit. I don't know why but I feel better with %defattr there but I'll remove the rest.

Richard

(In reply to comment #3)
> Hmm... The only problem I see is that tepache isn't a module but a end user
> script. SimpleGladeApp.py is the module. 

Ah, good point.  In that case, this package meets all of the MUST requirements, so it is approved.  I encourage you to contact upstream about a license file, though.

Contacted upstream, we'll see if the contacts me back.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: tepache
Short Description: Code sketcher for python
Owners: hobbes1069
Branches: F14 F15
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

tepache-1.1.2-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tepache-1.1.2-1.fc14

tepache-1.1.2-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tepache-1.1.2-1.fc15

tepache-1.1.2-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository.

tepache-1.1.2-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.

tepache-1.1.2-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.