Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-poppler.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-poppler-0.10.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Project URL: https://launchpad.net/poppler-python Description: Python bindings for the Poppler PDF rendering library. It is needed to run programs written in Python and using Poppler set. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1469440 rpmlint output: [fab@laptop09 SRPMS]$ rpmlint python-poppler-0.10.0-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [fab@laptop09 i586]$ rpmlint python-poppler* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Indeed, this builds and installs fine and rpmlint is silent. There's not much at all to it. python-poppler is an acceptable name for this package, but pypoppler is also acceptable (and it's conveniently the name of the tarball). Of course, upstream confuses the issue by naming the project poppler-python. In the end, the choice is yours. I would only advise that you consider what users will look for when they go to install the package. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 1c09814a457375da607aa400cd8774b98c016c760ea513e3a22357cf4fca63b1 pypoppler-0.10.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: poppler.so()(64bit) python-poppler = 0.10.0-1.fc12 python-poppler(x86-64) = 0.10.0-1.fc12 = libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpoppler-glib.so.4()(64bit) python(abi) = 2.6 * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one.
(In reply to comment #1) > python-poppler is an acceptable name for this package, but pypoppler is also > acceptable (and it's conveniently the name of the tarball). Of course, > upstream confuses the issue by naming the project poppler-python. In the end, > the choice is yours. I would only advise that you consider what users will > look for when they go to install the package. Thanks for this advise and the review. Package renamed to 'pypoppler'. Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pypoppler.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pypoppler-0.10.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pypoppler Short Description: Python bindings for the Poppler PDF rendering library Owners: fab Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
Ups, require the renaming of the package a new review?
Sorry, however closing. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 507621 ***
Hicham agreed that we go on with this review and close #507621
*** Bug 507621 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Again cvs... New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pypoppler Short Description: Python bindings for the Poppler PDF rendering library Owners: fab Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
cvs done.
Kevin, I'm not able to check out the module. Can you please have a look?
It looked OK in pkgdb, but I didn't see the directory in CVS so I ran pkgdb2branch.py pypoppler and it seems to have created everything.
Thank you Jason, now it's working.
pypoppler-0.10.0-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pypoppler-0.10.0-1.fc11
pypoppler-0.10.0-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: pypoppler New Branches: el6 Owners: fab
Git done (by process-git-requests).