https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395354 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for your comment and time to to review this package. (In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #1) > License: There is no LICENSE file. The license text is a section in the > README file. It would be really nice to ask upstream to include a LICENSE > file in the project (this is not a blocker) https://github.com/borntyping/python-colorlog/pull/37 > Tests: There is a test suite in colorlog/tests. Is there any reason for not > having a %check section in the package? Yes, the tests require colorlog to be installed which is not the case on the build system. > The package does not own its own directory: %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname} > and others: > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- > packages/colorlog/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/colorlog, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/colorlog It's been a while since my last work on packaging. First I thought that I was missing something but it seems that the example [1] is not simply wrong when it comes to ownership. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-colorlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-colorlog-2.7.0-2.fc24.src.rpm -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx