https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312409 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- A general comment for this package and the other ones: there's nothing wrong with %{with_py3k}, but so far people have been using %{with_python3}. I'd recommend renaming the macro, to make things just a bit more standard between packages. Can you expand the description a bit more to say what "docutils backend" means (you can use it to provide input in a different format or ...)? The same as for other packages: can you build python 2 and 3 packages from the same directory? Also, is the python2 and python3 documentation significantly different? If not, you should package just one version of the documentation. nosetests-%{python3_version} sphinx-build-%{python3_version} I don't think you need to convert LICENSE to html. Most people will read it in the terminal, where rst is totally ok. Same as for other packages, you don't need to preserve the timestamp of modified files. -- 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