https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066629 --- Comment #11 from Steven Dake <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to James Slagle from comment #3) > Hi Steve, thanks for the initial feedback. > > I've made some updates: > Spec URL: > https://raw.github.com/agroup/tripleo-rpm-spec-files/master/tripleo- > incubator/openstack-tripleo.spec > SRPM URL: > http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/openstack-m/openstack-m/fedora-20/SRPMS/ > openstack-tripleo-0.0.1-1.20140220git.fc20.src.rpm > > 1) & 2): > This is not a python package per se. There are 1 or 2 python scripts > underneath scripts/, but no python modules. The upstream setup.{py,cfg}, > doesn't actually install anything. If we used them to install, it would just > create an empty python module called tripleo-incubator. > > 3) updated for review > > 4) updated for review > > 5) updated for review > > 6) updated for review > > 7) yes, there are several Warnings, mostly for > conffile-without-noreplace-flag (which I don't want), and > no-manual-page-for-binary (no manpages exist). Are these Ok? If you want the conffile without noreplace, please give a rationale. Anything is fine, as long as it is recorded in the review. People may come along later and wonder "why" without understanding the packagers rationale. For manual pages, it is generally proper to request the packager to request the upstream to produce manual pages in their bug tracker. In the case of OpenStack, upstream doesn't care for manual pages, so there is little we can do about this point. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review