https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286867 Christos Triantafyllidis <christos.triantafyllidis@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|christos.triantafyllidis@gm |nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |ail.com | Flags|fedora-review- | --- Comment #5 from Christos Triantafyllidis <christos.triantafyllidis@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Paul, Thank you very much for the review. On your comments: - Missing LICENSE file, this is pretty big and will need to get resolved upstream. First of all I don't think that is a blocker, is it? It is on the SHOULDs. Nevertheless I totally agree with you and that is why I raised it as pull request to upstream when I submitted this review request: https://github.com/rackerlabs/os_virtual_interfacesv2_ext/pull/3 The package will be rebuild as soon as that is merged. - Missing python3 support. While the openstack libraries don't all support it, it would be nice to see the packaging here for the future. Refer to the python packaging guidelines. I actually copied the template of python packaging guidelines. Unfortunately the dependencies of that don't support python3 yet thus I removed the python3 part from the spec file. Is it needed and commented out? As soon as python-novaclient is available in python3 package I'll post an update. - No need for global sum, you can use %summary As above I just used what is in the template for multiversion python packages in the python packaging guidelines. I'll try setting Summary on the main package and using %summary in the python2 subpackage and if that works I'm happy to switch to it. - rpmlint errors. Those refer to the word "novaclient" not being in en_US dictionary. As this is a package name I don't think we should change it. - Missing documentation. Given that there is no upstream documentation I'm not sure if I should write and include my own on. I'm happy to raise it as an issue to upstream and contribute to upstream but till/unless it is accepted I'd prefer to not include any. - 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 is included in %license. Given that source package doesn't include the text of the license in its own file, that can't be included. - Spec file is legible and written in American English. I suspect that refers to the rpmlint errors. I'd say it is safe to ignore. I'm putting it back in the queue of NEW packages feel free to take the ticket if you want to do an official review (I see that the manual review parts are missing so I assume you were not doing an official review). Cheers, Christos PS: Removing the fedora-review (-) flag as that should be used only if the package is not suitable for packaging in Fedora (for legal or other reasons), a review that needs works does need to have it. -- 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