[Bug 439310] Review Request: gnue-common - GNU Enterprise Common Base

[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: gnue-common - GNU Enterprise Common Base


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439310





------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2008-03-31 06:12 EST -------
Aaron, please increment the release tag each time you modify the spec file and
submit a new rpm for review.

In fedora>=9, a .egg-info is created and it must also be included in the binary
rpm. Your %files section misses that and this leads to
  error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
     /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/gnue_common-0.6.9-py2.5.egg-info
which is easy fixable.

The "Require python>2.3" is not an error, but even Fedora 7 provides python 2.5.
Taking into account that rpmbuild adds automatically "python-abi = <version>" as
a requires, I suggest to completely drop this condition.
Some of the files included as doc are marked as executable and therefore they
bring in some rpmlint warnings and unneeded deps:
gnue-common.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/gnue-common-0.6.9/pdftable-example.py
gnue-common.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/gnue-common-0.6.9/pdftable-example.py /usr/bin/env


rpmlint also gives this warnings:
   gnue-common.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/gnue/sample.connections.conf
   gnue-common.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnue/sample.gnue.conf
Please examine if these files need or not this flag.

And last but not least, could you please instruct me how can I test that the
application works ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.