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: hgsvn - A set of scripts to work locally on subversion checkouts using mercurial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430265 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|Review Request: hgsvn - A |Review Request: hgsvn - A |set of scripts to work |set of scripts to work |locally on subversion |locally on subversion |checkouts using mercurial |checkouts using mercurial Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-27 02:47 EST ------- The author sure didn't make it very easy to find the license version. I found it properly specified only at the end of the __init__.py file. Shouldn't this require mercurial and subversion in some fashion? It doesn't really do much without them. There's a test suite which can easily be run. Add build dependencies on mercurial, subversion and python-nose and add a %check section containing: %{__python} setup.py test * source files match upstream: a56f5cce308e455fc6ec913355c3d5dd82c1f87b68b62828962b371469db9376 hgsvn-0.1.5.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 (the mercurial advertisement is a bit annoying, but meh.) * 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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires, missing hg and svn? hgsvn = 0.1.5-1.fc9 = /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.5 X %check is not present, but it should be. * 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 -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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