Spec URL: http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-python.spec SRPM URL: http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-python-2.2-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: A set of Python bindings for MD 2.2
[ OK ] specfiles match: [ OK ] source files match upstream: [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ FAIL ] build root is correct. Use: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [ FAIL ] license field matches the actual license. License appears to actually be MIT, not GPLv2+ [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ FAIL ] license text included in package. Please include a LICENSE file in %doc [ FAIL ] latest version is being packaged. 2.3.1 is available, does it build against Fedora's monodevelop? [ FAIL ] BuildRequires are proper. One dep per line is preferred. [ OK ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ ?? ] package builds in mock. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ OK ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ FAIL ] rpmlint is silent. monodevelop-python.src:50: E: files-attr-not-set monodevelop-python.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 10) monodevelop-python.x86_64: E: no-binary monodevelop-python.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib monodevelop-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation monodevelop-python-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Put %defattr(-,root,root,-) under %files devel Include LICENSE in both packages Fix whitespace "E: no-binary" can probably be ignored. [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ OK ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ FAIL ] owns the directories it creates. You should probably do: %dir %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/PyBinding [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ OK ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] code, not content. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ OK ] desktop files valid and installed properly.
It should be noted that the previous review is an unofficial review as part of Nathaniel's sponsorship process. Here are some comments for him as well as the packager. (In reply to comment #1) > [ FAIL ] BuildRequires are proper. > One dep per line is preferred. This really doesn't matter. > [ FAIL ] rpmlint is silent. > monodevelop-python.src:50: E: files-attr-not-set > monodevelop-python.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, > tab: line 10) > monodevelop-python.x86_64: E: no-binary > monodevelop-python.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > monodevelop-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation > monodevelop-python-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > Put %defattr(-,root,root,-) under %files devel > Include LICENSE in both packages > Fix whitespace > > "E: no-binary" can probably be ignored. This usually means that the package should be marked as noarch. Unless there's a fairly good reason that's not the case... > [ FAIL ] owns the directories it creates. > You should probably do: > %dir %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/PyBinding If you drop %dir it'll own everything recursively, so you can drop the contents of that folder as well.
the "E: no-binary" error is occurring because of the way Fedora packages mono stuff. ie Fedora uses arch specific %{_libdir} even though the files are not arch specific. This is a long-time complaint about Fedora's mono packages coming from the mono devs. If Fedora decided not to use arch-specific libdir, then the packages could be marked as noarch and this error would disappear.
I repackage monodevelop-python to update upstream version 2.4 Spec URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/monodevelop-python.spec SRPM URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/monodevelop-python-2.4-1.fc13.src.rpm Please review FE-NEEDSPONSOR Thanks!
Paul, are you still interested in maintaining this package in Fedora?
What's the status on this?
Package has been needinfo on submitter for 14 months, closing review request. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_policy#Submitter_not_responding