https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875213 Ralph Bean <rbean@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean <rbean@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package is APPROVED! (In reply to comment #4) > > [!]: 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? Wow. You're right. I don't know how I missed that. > >[!]: %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? You might try "PYTHONPATH=$(pwd) python cssselect/tests.py" You can add it after importing the srpm since this isn't a blocker. > 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? Ah, I've not noticed it since I've been using pingou's pypi2spec for new packages. I'll make a note to track that down. -- 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