Fedora Merge Review: pygtk2 http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/pygtk2/ Initial Owner: mbarnes
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)