Spec Name or Url: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/pessulus/pessulus.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/pessulus/pessulus-0.9-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: Pessulus is a lockdown editor for GNOME, written in python. Pessulus enables administrators to set mandatory settings in GConf. The users can not change these settings. Use of pessulus can be useful on computers that are open to use by everyone, e.g. in an internet cafe.
A few changes need to be made to this package: - You were missing a lot of BuildRequires. Look carefully at what %configure is checking for. - Remove unnecessary Requires: There is no need to hardcode gtk when pygtk is a Requires. - You should always use version-release in changelog entries - Make sure you have correct directory ownership, instead of wild-carding %{_libdir} - use python_sitearch for python packages - make python "scripts" executable, this will shutup rpmlint - use find_lang to grab locales I'm attaching a fixed spec to this email. The following review is based on the fixed spec: Good: - rpmlint checks return: E: pessulus no-binary (safe to ignore) E: pessulus script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Pessulus/__init__.py (safe to ignore, this is a 0 file) - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - locales handled properly - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - desktop file OK Unless you have issues with any of the changes in my spec, the package (as modified by my spec) is approved.
Created attachment 127480 [details] fixed pessulus spec
Thanks for your patch, it's my second rpm package, i'm sorry for the made errors. For me, your patch is welcome ;-) but i'm surprised that the changes are not documented in the extras guideline.
Spot, this is the first package for this submitter. Based on all the changes you made to fix this spec file, I'm a little leery of having him sponsored based on this package. He should probably submit a few more packages, so we can assess his knowledge before sponsoring him.
Damien, do you have another package we can look at before I sponsor you?
Hi Tom, you can check these packages : - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188435 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188440
*** Bug 193105 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Changed summary for tracking purposes.