[Bug 520246] Review Request: python-sysv_ipc - System V IPC for Python

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520246


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-09-23 15:38:39 EDT ---
Builds fine and indeed rpmlint is silent.  Everything looks fine to me.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:                    
   bc53f2c63a2984e3807a0eb8111f0f6b70281d01963a0a7848deedf08dec28af
   sysv_ipc-0.4.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
* description is OK.                                                          
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  python-sysv_ipc-0.4.2-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   sysv_ipc.so()(64bit)
   python-sysv_ipc = 0.4.2-1.fc12
   python-sysv_ipc(x86-64) = 0.4.2-1.fc12
  =
   libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit)
   python(abi) = 2.6

  python-sysv_ipc-examples-0.4.2-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   python-sysv_ipc-examples = 0.4.2-1.fc12
   python-sysv_ipc-examples(x86-64) = 0.4.2-1.fc12
  =
   python-sysv_ipc = 0.4.2-1.fc12

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.