Hide Forgot
python-poppler-qt4 provides python bindings to poppler-qt4 This package is required for an upcoming version of frescobaldi, a music notation editor. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/python-poppler-qt4-0.16.2-1.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/python-poppler-qt4.spec fedora16:~/rpmbuild $ rpmlint SRPMS/python-poppler-qt4-0.16.2-1.fc16.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/python-poppler-qt4-*.rpm SPECS/python-poppler-qt4.spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
I want to ask, if you can provide a pytohon-3 compilant release of this package.
Doesn't seem to be explicitly supported by upstream, although testing python 3.x is on upstream's TODO list. If you make a case for it and upstream agrees I will modify the spec.
Taking for review.
Legend: +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license [+] license field matches the actual license [+] license file is included in %doc [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum is 6a1c1a84df08a1798bbacffa33f86ba3 for both [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64) [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel: this package has an .so, but it is in the right place [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386 [+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64 [+] package functions as described: only minimal testing [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [+] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/script Nicely done. This package is APPROVED,
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-poppler-qt4 Short Description: python bindings to poppler-qt4 Owners: bsjones Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-poppler-qt4-0.16.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-poppler-qt4-0.16.2-1.fc16
python-poppler-qt4-0.16.2-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-poppler-qt4-0.16.2-1.fc15
python-poppler-qt4-0.16.2-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
python-poppler-qt4-0.16.2-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
python-poppler-qt4-0.16.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
Good stuff, might I suggest adding some runtime dependencies: Requires: PyQt4 %{?_sip_api:Requires: sip-api(%{_sip_api_major}) >= %{_sip_api}} the latter item is a trick we use elsewhere in the distro to track sip binary compatibility.
Heck, I can add these myself (to rawhide), if there are no objection or otherwise good reason not to do so.
Thanks for that, I have updated in rawhide, Will issue and update for the other branches