Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 438892
Review Request: pyPdf - PDF toolkit
Last modified: 2008-05-13 13:07:14 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.felix-schwarz.name/files/misc/2008/pypdf/pypdf.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.felix-schwarz.name/files/misc/2008/pypdf/pyPdf-1.10-1.fc8.src.rpm
A Pure-Python library built as a PDF toolkit. It is capable of:
* extracting document information (title, author, ...),
* splitting documents page by page,
* merging documents page by page,
* cropping pages,
* merging multiple pages into a single page,
* encrypting and decrypting PDF files.
As this is my first RPM which I submit to Fedora, I need a sponsor.
pyPdf.src: E: invalid-spec-name pypdf.spec
pyPdf.src: W: invalid-license modified BSD
Sorry, I ran rpmlint only on the spec file.
- removed unnecessary python_sitearch macro declaration
Everything looks good. No rpmlint output. Builds fine on Koji for dist-f9
well done, Kairo, please proceed with
sorry for the noise, wrong bz ticket
- rpmlint clean
- package naming satisfies python module naming guidelines
- spec file name matches package name
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license is BSD, matches package
- license text not in separate file, but included directly in python source
files, which are of course packaged and thus license texts are included in
- spec file written in English and is legible
- sources match upstream (md5sum e15eca1a3ed4d5c0d86370784e552a92)
- package builds OK in mock on i386 and x86_64 for Fedora 9
- buildreqs OK
- no shared libraries, static libraries, header files, pkgconfig files, or
locale files to worry about
- package doesn't claim to be relocatable
- directory ownership OK
- no duplicate files
- %defattr(...) present and correct in %files section
- %clean section present and correct
- %install section properly cleans buildroot first
- macro usage is consistent
- code, not content
- docs don't affect runtime
- not a GUI app, no desktop file needed
- filenames are all ASCII
- I haven't tested that the package functions OK as it's basically a library
for use with other apps
- no scriptlets or subpackages
- no file dependencies
Use a more specific files list, e.g.
this helps catch future changes that create extra files in the package, which
you might want to document further in the changelog etc.
Include CHANGELOG in %doc
One other strenuous suggestion: Please query upstream to include a LICENSE file
in the package. Especially with the BSD license that has several variants of
which one can be problematic ("BSD with advertising"), this can be important.
(In reply to comment #8)
> One other strenuous suggestion: Please query upstream to include a LICENSE file
> in the package. Especially with the BSD license that has several variants of
> which one can be problematic ("BSD with advertising"), this can be important.
The license text for this package is actually included in (some of) the source
files, and is the 3-clause BSD license without the advertising clause. It may
not be possible to have a single license file because not all of the files have
the same copyright holders.
Update the package according to comment #7. I can ask upstream if a license file
can be included in the upstream tarball but I hope this package can be included
in Fedora even without this.
Updated files at: http://www.felix-schwarz.name/files/misc/2008/pypdf/1.10-4/
(In reply to comment #10)
> Update the package according to comment #7. I can ask upstream if a license file
> can be included in the upstream tarball but I hope this package can be included
> in Fedora even without this.
Please do; it's not a blocker though.
> Updated files at: http://www.felix-schwarz.name/files/misc/2008/pypdf/1.10-4/
Approved. You can apply for cvsextras membership in the accounts system now.
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: pyPdf
Short Description: PDF toolkit
Branches: F-8 F-9
Cvsextras Commits: yes
pyPdf imported into CVS, builds well (and should be pushed to F-8 soon, see
Package Change Request
Package Name: pyPdf
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5