https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875213 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> --- >Leigh's comment about the files section is appropriate, but it should likely be >broken into two lines to include egg-info as well.: > >%{python_sitelib}/cssselect/ >%{python_sitelib}/cssselect-%{version}-* Fixed. >[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel >See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires Fixed. >[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required > > Are you planning on building this for el5? If not, then this can be > removed. Nope. Removed. > [!]: 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 included as a %doc... is it not showing up right somehow? >[!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > This is only a SHOULD, but it should be pretty easy. The tests exist > and pass when I try to run them. %check should just include > "python cssselect/tests.py":: I actually looked at adding this before I submitted the package review, but the problem is that %check is done right after build, and the package isn't installed anywhere that check can read it. So, I would need to adjust the tests.py to look in the buildroot for things in order for it to work? I'll note for amusement that all the above things I had to fix were set that way by rpmdev-newspec. Perhaps we could fix it's default python template up? Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/python-cssselect/python-cssselect.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/python-cssselect/python-cssselect-0.7.1-2.fc18.src.rpm -- 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