[Bug 544630] pyatspi - Python bindings for at-spi

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jan 7 17:10:42 UTC 2010


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=544630


Tomáš Bžatek <tbzatek at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tbzatek at redhat.com




--- Comment #4 from Tomáš Bžatek <tbzatek at redhat.com>  2010-01-07 12:10:40 EDT ---
Uh oh, somebody else did the review meanwhile I was working on it... here are
my findings anyway, kinda same as Joshua's :-)


source files match upstream: ok
package meets naming and versioning guidelines: ok
specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently: ok
dist tag is present: ok
build root is correct: ok
license field matches the actual license: the spec file says LGPLv2+ while most
of the files are LGPLv2-only
license is open source-compatible: ok
license text included in package: yes
latest version is being packaged: ok
BuildRequires are proper: yes
compiler flags are appropriate: none, ok
%clean is present: ok
package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64): ok
debuginfo package looks complete: no, please see below
rpmlint is silent: no, please see below
final provides and requires look sane: ok
no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths: ok, none
owns the directories it creates: ok
doesn't own any directories it shouldn't: ok
no duplicates in %files: ok
file permissions are appropriate: ok
no scriptlets present: ok
documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary: ok
%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package: ok
libtool archives: none, ok
pc files: ok
header files: ok
static libs: none, ok


Notes:
 - several source files in the 'pyatspi' directory contain portions of code
under BSD license
 - builds fine in koji

rpmlint output:
pyatspi.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US spi
pyatspi.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US spi
pyatspi.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US assistive
pyatspi.x86_64: E: no-binary
pyatspi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.

ignore the spelling errors, but there's another catch: looks like the .pth file
is arch dependant (installed in /usr/lib64), we can't use noarch here. The
no-binary error is justified, so is the empty-debuginfo-package error. 

I suggest to add "%global debug_package %{nil}" per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_other_reasons

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list