[Bug 1570555] Review Request: python-pgspecial - Python implementation of postgres meta commands ( backslash commands)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570555

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
             Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)     |
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> ---
rpmlint:
python3-pgspecial.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{desc}
python3-pgspecial.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US desc -> disc,
desk, descry
python3-pgspecial.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-pgspecial.src: E: description-line-too-long C This package provides an
API to execute meta-commands (AKA "special", or "backslash commands") on
PostgreSQL.
python-pgspecial.src:83: W: macro-in-comment %license
python-pgspecial.src:90: W: macro-in-comment %license
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
→ all valid, need to be fixed.

URL: http://pgcli.com → URL: https://pgcli.com

rm -rf mycli.egg-info
→ Not needed, it's only binary eggs that need to be deleted.

You don't use %pypi_name consistently. I'd suggest get rid of that define, it
just makes this harder to read.

You use both %bcond_with %global with_*. It should be one or the other. I'd
suggest getting rid of %bcond (it's a really confusing interface), and just
having two defines: %global with_python2, %global with python3.

--

I can sponsor you. My requirements apart from this package will be two or three
reviews of other packages. Please see
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html for a list of interesting
candidates. Please set up mock, if you haven't already, and base your reviews
on fedora-review output, but note that fedora-review does get stuff wrong
occasionally and leaves a lot of boxes to be filled manually. In the reviews
make a comment that your review is informal because you are not in the
packagers group yet. After you are, you can finish those reviews, if nobody
else beats you to it.

In case of questions, feel free to query me on IRC (I'm zbyszek in
#fedora-devel), or by mail.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/TYWWF353HW5NXJ32XVVSXWHO26QLGLWE/




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux