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=468128 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-28 19:24:28 EDT --- This looks rather clean; I guess I could point out that the first line of the spec is kind of meaningless and should be removed. I note that there is a test suite, but it talks to flickr's servers so it can't be run automatically. However, I did run it and found that two of the tests fail. One fails because a file tests/photo.jpg is missing (maybe I'm supposed to provide it myself), and a second fails like so: File "/home/tibbs/work/rpm/python-flickrapi-1.1/flickrapi-1.1/flickrapi/multipart.py", line 16, in flickrapi.multipart.Part Failed example: Part({'name': 'photo', 'filename': image}, image.read(), 'image/jpeg') # doctest: +ELLIPSIS Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.5/doctest.py", line 1212, in __run compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest flickrapi.multipart.Part[2]>", line 1, in <module> Part({'name': 'photo', 'filename': image}, image.read(), 'image/jpeg') NameError: name 'image' is not defined Perhaps you can make some sense of that. It would be nice to have an explanation before importing a package with known test failures. * source files match upstream: 0f6e10738d87ff81a47c4841dab735c56e1d00ed1ce755ab0b603abc2e640974 flickrapi-1.1.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 not included upstream * 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-flickrapi = 1.1-4.fc10 = python(abi) = 2.5 * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * 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