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-libtidy - Python bindings for libtidy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177828 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-01-15 13:17 EST ------- MUST items that pass: - rpmlint output: E: python-libtidy explicit-lib-dependency libtidy I'm assuming that's ignorable because it wraps the library using python-ctypes. Does it? - license open-source (MIT) - License field matches license - license included both in upstream and in package as %doc - spec file in American English - spec file legible - spec file matches upstream - compiles and builds on FC4-i386 - noarch package so fine on every architecture - no BuildRequires in exceptions - no locales - no shared libs - not relocatable - owns its dirs - no duplicate files - file persmissions OK - has %clean section - macro use consistent - package includes code - no large docs - removal of docs doesn't affect functionality - no need for -devel - no GUI application - doesn't own files or dirs owned by others SHOULD items that pass: - builds in mock - should compile and build on all arches, since it's noarch and builds on i386 - functions as described: installed the package, the module works as documented on the upstream URL - no subpackages Comments: - package name should better be python-tidy, as that is the name of the python module it provides. - Remove the BuildRequires for python-devel: it's not necessary - Expand the %description, if possible - Add a BuildRequires of python >= 2.3 (as mentioned in README.txt) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
