Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 235189
Review Request: nautilus-python - Python bindings for Nautilus
Last modified: 2012-04-05 16:40:51 EDT
Spec URL: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/nautilus-python/nautilus-python.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/nautilus-python/nautilus-python-0.4.3-1.src.rpm
Description: Python bindings for Nautilus.
- Builds in mock on rawhide i386 and fc6 x86_64.
- Output from rpmlint:
[trondd@localhost i386]$ rpmlint nautilus-python-*
W: nautilus-python-devel no-documentation
+ naming is good
+ specfile name matches base package name
+ Licensed as GPL and includes COPYING file accordingly
+ specfile written in english-ese and is legible
+ included source md5sum checks with upstream source as listed in SOURCE0 url
+ builds on x86 fedora-development in mock
+ buildrequires look good
+ no locales
+ not relocatable
+ base package owns all directories it creates and directory ownership of parent
directories is accounted for in package deps
+ permissions seem to be okay
+ clean section is okay
+ consistent use of macros
+ permissible code and content
+ items in doc are not runtime necessary
+ devel requires versioned base package
+ not a gui
+ does not obviously own files from another package
+ install section looks good
+ build.log shows its using the RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- Must remove all .la files
- devel subpackage needs to require pkgconfig due to directory ownership rules
- Need to include appropriate ldconfig scriptlets for shared libraries
? Would it be better if the examples were placed in docs section of the devel
package, instead of in the main package?
Attached you'll find an updated spec file that corrects the blocker items
listed above. Please review it write back if you need to discuss anything. Once
you resubmit updated spec and srpm urls that correct the blockers this should be
Created attachment 153113 [details]
updated spec with review corrections included
specfile with suggested review blocker corrections included.
(In reply to comment #1)
> The Suggestions
> ? Would it be better if the examples were placed in docs section of the devel
> package, instead of in the main package?
That is a good idea. I have added it to the spec file.
> The Corrections
> Attached you'll find an updated spec file that corrects the blocker items
> listed above. Please review it write back if you need to discuss anything. Once
> you resubmit updated spec and srpm urls that correct the blockers this should be
New versions of the source rpm and spec file can be found here:
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: nautilus-python
Short Description: Python bindings for Nautilus.
Thank you for the review and the feedback!
Package Change Request
Package Name: nautilus-python
New Branches: el5 el6
dignan is already listed as the owner of the EPEL package under https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/nautilus-python.
However, the package can still not be found in the EPEL repository. I imagine that a branch request is necessary.
Note that versions higher than 0.7.0-3 will not work on RHEL because they require Nautilus 3.
I am not able to set the fedora-cvs flag to ?, as recommended in the instructions. It is locked at +. So I set the needinfo flag to ?.
I've set the flag to ? so that we can get this done.
I don't see anything in pkgdb or git that doesn't match what's requested.
Fair enough. I'm just used to seeing some sort of confirmation that the actions had been performed.
Hi Jon and Ignacio,
pkgdb is just fine. I never said that pkgdb was missing something. But the package itself can still not be found in the EPEL repository. See RepoView, for example:
There is no "nautilus-python" in there.
nautilus-python will be built for EPEL within the context of bug 771262.
There is nothing more to do here.