[Bug 895077] Review Request: python-docopt - Pythonic argument parser, that will make you smile

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895077

Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Just some quick comments:
> 
> - %dos are missing (e.g. LICENSE-MIT, README.md)

They aren't in the upstream tarball, in which case the guidelines don't mandate
them to be present. [1] says " If (and only if) the source package includes the
text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc."

> - The %description and the %summary needs some tweaking. At the moment both
> are not very useful.

I disagree, from my point of view it says enough. Anyway, this is not a blocker
for me, so I'll leave it up to Martin's best judgement whether he'll change
this or not before importing to dist-git.

> - There is no *.egg-info file in the upstream tarball. I would suggest to
> leave it in place. You never know what will happen in the future.

There is a docopt.egg-info directory and I agree that it should be removed and
regenerated during build. I consider this to be a good practice, that makes
sure everything that can be regenerated is regenerated.

> - There is an folder with examples. Perhaps it's worth to pack those files.

If it was in the upstream tarball, I'd concur. This way, I'd maybe just
encourage upstream to include it (and also include the license text), but this
is not mandatory.

> 
> The 'review' flag should be set by the reviewer and not the reporter.

True :) And thanks for your comments!


Martin, please next time when doing changes during review, bump the release and
add a proper changelog entry.


Since I see no blockers, this package is APPROVED. Martin, please consider
improving the summary and description before importing to dist-git and
encouraging upstream to include license text and examples in the next tarball.

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#Things_To_Check_On_Review

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sOVNvioQEe&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]