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=515752 --- Comment #7 from LINBIT <partner@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-30 20:47:16 EDT --- Here goes. This is the first of a series of review comments: Package naming guidelines: - Package name meets defined character set: OK - General Naming: N/A (package is a Python module) - Separators: N/A - Upstream naming outside specified character set: N/A - Conflicting package names: OK (none) - Multiple packages with the same base name: N/A - Spec file name: OK - Package version: OK - Package release: OK (package is a pre-release module, has "svn" in %{release}, uses %{?dist}) - Minor release bumps for old branches: OK - Case Sensitivity: OK (name is all lowercase) - Renaming/replacing existing packages: N/A (package is new, does not replace an existing package) - Documentation SubPackages: N/A (no sub-package necessary) - Font Packages: N/A (package is not a font package) - Addon Packages (General): OK (package is a Python module, uses "python-" prefix) - Addon Packages (python modules): OK (module is named "soaplib", package is named "python-soaplib") One minor comment I have is that it seems rarely used to include the SVN revision _number_ in the release field. Normally, people do with <date>svn or similar. But being able to track down the actual SVN release sounds very reasonable to me. -- 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