Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-fedora - Python modules for talking to Fedora Infrastructure Services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=295041 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-21 22:24 EST ------- Looks pretty good to me. rpmbuild says: python-fedora-infrastructure.noarch: W: no-documentation which is no big deal. There's a typo in the Source0 line (should be toshio.fedorapeople.org). I'm curious about the zero-length __init__.py files; I figured rpmlint would complain about them but they're explicitly exempted from the check so I suppose they're required. * source files match upstream: aeeee4d9a2dace30ff60fa0ec86540c26b65e825e84b99124f2de42eee13f91d python-fedora-0.2.90.18.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: python-fedora-0.2.90.18-2.fc8.noarch.rpm python-fedora = 0.2.90.18-2.fc8 = python(abi) = 2.5 python-simplejson python-fedora-infrastructure-0.2.90.18-2.fc8.noarch.rpm python-fedora-infrastructure = 0.2.90.18-2.fc8 = python(abi) = 2.5 python-fedora = 0.2.90.18-2.fc8 python-psycopg2 python-sqlalchemy * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. You wrote this so I assume you know if it works or not. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED; the only needed change I see is the Source0 line. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review