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=488407 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-12 15:03:11 EDT --- I believe the license issue is sufficiently resolved. rpmlint says: python-text_table.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/text_table.py 0644 This is the usual "starts with a shebang but isn't executable" problem. I still have no idea why python programmers do this. I don't particularly think it's a problem but you can sed out the shebang line if you like. python-text_table.noarch: E: description-line-too-long This module provides an interface to output simple ASCII tables. It is based on That goes right to 80 characters. That's really the only real problem I see, so I'll approve this and you can reflow the %description when you check in. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: e66bb3f653879b7799b7928b762bbba2fd086c17f3fc55891c92c796be9c5f48 text_table-0.02.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. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: python-text_table = 0.02-2.fc11 = python(abi) = 2.6 * 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. APPROVED, just re-wrap the description. 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review