[Bug 217066] Review Request: python-gpod - A python module to access iPod content

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: python-gpod - A python module to access iPod content
Alias: python-gpod-review

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217066





------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com  2006-11-24 23:33 EST -------
Since I cannot sponsor the requester, I can not do the formal review of this
package. Below I provide my informal review of python-gpod-0.4.0-2.fc7.src.rpm
that the sponsering reviewer can look over.  I don't see any blockers, see my
comments about non-critical specfile style after my review checklist.  I will be
attempting to test this binding with editted versions of the example scripts
provideed in the %docs section.


GOOD: Builds in mock against fedora-development-i386 target
GOOD: rpmlint runs clean against python-gpod-0.4.0-2.fc7.i386.rpm
GOOD: Follows naming guidelines for python packaging.
GOOD: the spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
GOOD: the package is licensed LGPL
GOOD: the License field matches the actual license.
GOOD: COPYING file is included in %doc
GOOD: Spec file is written in American English
GOOD: Spec file is reasonably legible
GOOD: Spec URL points to correct upstream project page
GOOD: Included source tarball matches upstream source listed in spec SOURCE0 
md5sum: e427e0409b0cb2d7e76b17915b1396fa  libgpod-0.4.0.tar.gz
GOOD: Locales are not handled in this package. The Locale information is handled
in the lingpod package in Core. This package just handled the python bindings
which are not currently packaged by Core.
GOOD: no shared libraries in linkers default path.
GOOD: no request for relocatable packaging
GOOD: Package owns all directories it creates.
GOOD: No duplicate files in %file
GOOD: Permissions are set correctly
GOOD: %clean section
GOOD: Consistent use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
GOOD: No significant 'content' in package
GOOD: no -docs packagable material
GOOD: %docs section holds non-critical examples and COPYING file
GOOD: no -devel packagable material
GOOD: no .la files included 
GOOD: no gui applications included
GOOD: no duplicate ownership of payload files according to repoquery
GOOD: BuildRequires section in spec looks good, 

SPECFILE NOTES:
the sed script to strip the #!/usr/bin/env python line from gtkpod is fine and
is technically correct since gtkpod.py is not meant to be run as a standalone
executable.  Would this be better done as a patch file? The sed script is really
simple so I'm not inclined to say this must be done as a patch file. Its a
technically correct but inherently cosmetic change.

The multiple rm statements in the %install section serve the purpose of
excluding files provided in the Core libgpod package. This could be done with a
set of %exclude statements in the %files section, but I don't think there is a
requirement to choose either style over the other.


-jef

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.