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-dtopt - Add options to doctest examples while they are running https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453082 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-27 12:59 EST ------- Builds fine, rpmlint is silent. I admit to not being able to understand anything at all about the summary or even the description, I can't even understand enough of them to suggest improvements. I suppose someone who knows something of the subject matter would understand them, but I would suggest trying to make it a little more readable if you can. I guess my issue is that %description seems more like the documentation for the package instead of a short overview of what it does. Still, perhaps I'm just daft, and the packaging itself looks fine. * source files match upstream: 06ae07a12294a7ba708abaa63f838017d1a2faf6147a1e7a14ca4fa28f86da7f dtopt-0.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * 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 are sane: python-dtopt = 0.1-2.fc10 = python(abi) = 2.5 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I've no idea how to test this. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * 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. APPROVED -- 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