https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214840 Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello and welcome aboard, This is an informal review, so you'll have to wait for another packager to approve this. Going over the items on fedora-review's checklist, here's what I've found: * I'm not sure how this is supposed to work, but I think you need to specify "BuildRequires: python2-devel" or "BuildRequires: python3-devel". See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires * License files have been included in all rpms, even though fedora-review complains (Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)), perhaps this warrants a bug report against fedora-review. * There were 4 warnings from rpmlint: python-statsd-doc.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Documentation of the Python client for the statsd daemon. python-statsd-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-statsd-doc/html/objects.inv python-statsd-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-statsd-doc/html/objects.inv python-statsd-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-statsd-doc/html/_static/jquery.js The first one can be fixed easily, just remove the full stop at the end of the summary sentence. I don't think the others are worth bothering with, however, in the line where you clean up after sphinx-build, you could also remove objects.inv (I couldn't find anything that needs it). The following are from the "Python" section of the checklist: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. - I checked the mock build logs and nothing was downloaded during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. - I found no such case. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python - I'm fairly confident that this was not given a "pass" from the script because you need to specify the BR i mentioned earlier to be in compliance with the guidelines. All the other Python-related stuff seem to be in order. These here are not mandatory, they are on the "SHOULD" items list: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) - For some time now, rpm handles this internally and you don't really need to have a %clean section (not on Fedora at least). [!]: Latest version is packaged. - It's not. Is there a particular reason for that? [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. - Can't that be done with the included tests.py file? [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. - According to the build log, every file that is copied has the same timestamp as in the source tarball. I have confirmed that all the other items on the list are OK. Please let me know if you think I am wrong about something, after all I'm learning from this. -- 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