Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458397 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-09 15:52:35 EDT --- Looks clean to me. I note that there seem to be some included tests; "setup.py test" will run them file if python-nose is added as a build dependency: Ran 35 tests in 0.068s OK It's probably worth doing that, unless you can see a reason not to. * source files match upstream: 01112b01f72cb2f71029f4f392405a8bb1f1f6159a91ee2a883e82f888f5864f Paver-0.8.1.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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: python-paver = 0.8.1-1.fc10 = /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.5 X %check should probably be added. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review