Spec URL: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/python-babel-glade.spec SRPM URL: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-babel-glade-0.2-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This is a Babel extractor plug-in which extracts translatable messages. * * * rpmlint output -------------- $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/python-babel-glade.spec rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-babel-glade-0.2-1.fc14.noarch.rpm rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-babel-glade-0.2-1.fc14.src.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
I'll go ahead and review this. Look for a full review in a bit.
Package Review ============== Key: OK = Check ISSUE = Problem, see issues at the bottom. === REQUIRED ITEMS === ISSUE Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ISSUE Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. ok Spec file is legible and written in American English. ok Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. ok Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. ok Package consistently uses macros. ok Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. ok PreReq is not used. ok All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. ok Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) or not present ok Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. ok Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). ok Changelog in prescribed format. ok Rpmlint output ok License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ok If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. ok License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ok Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ok Sources contain only permissible code or content. ok Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 178ec040db6bd8126eb80e1adb892c9c BabelGladeExtractor-0.2dev-r288.tar.bz2 178ec040db6bd8126eb80e1adb892c9c BabelGladeExtractor-0.2dev-r288.tar.bz2.pkg ok Requires correct, justified where necessary. ok Package must own all directories that it creates. ok Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. ok Package requires other packages for directories it uses. ok Package does not contain duplicates in %files. ok Permissions on files are set properly. ok Each %files section contains %defattr. ok No %config files under /usr. ok %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. ok Package contains code, or permissable content. ok File names are valid UTF-8. ok Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. ok Package contains no bundled libraries. ok Package does not generate any conflict. ok Package does not contains kernel modules. ok Package is not relocatable. ok Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. ok Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. ok Package installs properly. ok Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. ok Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6] === SUGGESTED ITEMS === ok Latest version is packaged. ok Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. ok If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ok Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. ok SourceX is a working URL. ISSUE Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). ok Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ok Dist tag is present. ok Spec use %global instead of %define. ok No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. ok Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. ok File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. (blocker) are you sure the name is right here? It's a bit of a weird fuzzy area I guess. It is python, and it is a babel plugin, but the upstream is BabelGladeExtractor or in some places 'babelglade'. Would python-babel-BabelGladeExtractor make more sense? 2. (blocker) not sure the version is right here either. Is this a pre-release ? Then I would suggest: 0.2-0.0.dev.r288 ? Then, when final 0.2 is released you can go to 0.2-1 safely. 3. (blocker) Should this package require python-babel? It's not much good without it is it?
1. Yeah, I was trying too hard to avoid redundancy. Fixed. 2. The "dev" doesn't seem too useful since "0.N" in the release field already indicates a pre-release -- but I used r288 since that indicates the specific SVN revision. Does that work for you? 3. Yes -- in fact I fixed that and copied up a new spec file shortly after the original, but you must have started the review super-quickly! :-) Thanks for your help, and here are the new files: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/python-babel-BabelGladeExtractor.spec http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-babel-BabelGladeExtractor-0.2-0.2.r288.fc14.src.rpm
1. Yeah, to me having the upstream name in there is good, but I agree it looks kinda redundant, but I think it will do. 2. Seems fine. 3. :) ok, looks good. I don't see any further blockers, so this package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-babel-BabelGladeExtractor Short Description: This is a Babel extractor plug-in which extracts translatable messages. Owners: pfrields Branches: f13 f14 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).