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=812561 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-22 04:56:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > You're right the test is pretty useless at the moment, so I'll comment that > out. I'm not sure if there's a good way to run an automated test on an > interactive debugger. I hope it'll be enough to just test the single test with nosetests, when I'll update ipython... ipython-0.13 will come in the next month and don't know yet, if I'll do a f17 update too. > HISTORY.txt comes from upstream. Should I patch it to say 0.7-2.20120414git? 0.7 wasn't released yet as in setup.py is this: "version = '0.7dev'" and commit d404542e says: "Back to development: 0.7" and there is no tag, that says 0.7 and there are no downloads available with version 0.7 This means you are shipping an unreleased version and therefore need the proper pre-release naming convention: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages Why aren't you using the released 0.6.2? It seems run{,call,eval} and the python3 support are new since then. It would be great to ask upstream, what license exactly is meant with GPL as "GPL" seems to be bad: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL As upstream doesn't add a LICENSE/COPYING file, it's a SHOULD anyway to ask them to add 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review