https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456 --- Comment #13 from Pavel Alexeev <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #10) > > You should also include %check section > > Since there is no test, I don't think it is relevant. Why you think so? According to logs its at least does not fail: + /usr/bin/python2 setup.py test warning: no files found matching 'MANIFEST' warning: no files found matching '*' under directory 'extras' warning: no previously-included files matching '.cvsignore' found under directory '*' warning: no previously-included files matching '*.pyc' found under directory '*' warning: no previously-included files matching '*~' found under directory '*' warning: no previously-included files matching '.DS_Store' found under directory '*' zip_safe flag not set; analyzing archive contents... docutils.parsers.rst.directives.misc: module references __file__ docutils.writers.docutils_xml: module references __path__ docutils.writers.html4css1.__init__: module references __file__ docutils.writers.pep_html.__init__: module references __file__ docutils.writers.s5_html.__init__: module references __file__ docutils.writers.latex2e.__init__: module references __file__ docutils.writers.odf_odt.__init__: module references __file__ zip_safe flag not set; analyzing archive contents... > > do not include license separate from upstream. > > The license comes from the git upstream repository, so in my point of view > it comes from upstream. If the license is not included in the tarball I > fetch it from github if possible so the package contains a license provided > but upstream anyway. I was never told this is a bad practice, nor do I think > it is. It included separate from upstream even by separate Source tags. Alternatively you may use tarball from github (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Commit_Revision) - they are include license. > > But it should be placed in python-recommonmark, nor python2-recommonmark nor python3-recommonmark. > > I don't see where this is mentioned in the guideline. Placing it in the > python-recommonmark (ie for now in the python2-recommonmark package, since > this package provides python-recommonmark) would require to install the > python3-recommonmark package with the python2 one as the executable is built > for python3 and so will depends on files from > /usr/share/python3.x/site-packages. I don't think this is the best way to do > it. The main point there place site-part in packages have python number (2 or 3) in name as it require according version of python. If you have binaries which is work absolutely same on python3 and python2 it have no sence provide it in both packages. So, for any system which may use 2 or 3 python should be installed one package with one binary. In you case only one got binary. Additionally not all requirements mentioned and package failed to build: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9172/12579172/build.log No local packages or download links found for docutils>=0.11 -- 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