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=708115 --- Comment #3 from Martin Krizek <mkrizek@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-17 06:38:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Hi James, my *informal* review: > > Hi Martin, many thanks for your informal review feedback! > > > <snip> > > > [ TODO ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does > > not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which > > does create that directory. > > This should be [ OK ] as far as I know, since the package only includes a > python library at this time. > "TODO" was for me, I didn't notice that I forgot to change it to OK. You are right, sorry about that. > > [ BAD ] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a > > separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > ===> License is not included. > > Thank you for finding this, I have raised this issue with upstream and will > monitor for updates. > > https://code.google.com/p/python-atfork/issues/detail?id=2 > > > [ BAD ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If > > it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. ===> No man > > pages. > > There are no scripts or binaries included with python-atfork. My understanding > is that this should be NA for this particular package. Feel free to correct > me, though. Right. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review