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=668591 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Ness <jeffrey.n...@rackspace.com> 2011-01-25 14:51:53 EST --- Hello Steve, I took your SRPM and was able to successfully build in mock using the epel-5-i386 configuration (this config does have Python 2.6). Below is a more detailed review: Good: * rpmlint cean * Package follows naming guidelines * Spec file name matches package name * License is BSD in source and spec file * BSD is an open source license * License is included in the package doc * Source matches upstream: md5sum 48d445941c16d6aa55caf8e148fc0911 * Builds in mock * All build deps statisfied * No locale files that need to be marked with %find_lang * No shared libraries * No bundled libraries * Package is not relocatable * No files listed more than once * All files and directories created by the package owned by the package and no others. * Package contains code, not content. * No large documentation that needs to be in a separate subpackage * Nothing in %doc used at runtime * No GUI application included so no .desktop requirement * All filenames are valid utf-8 * No scriptlets * No file dependencies * No programs so no need for man pages * Runs %checks with Python test suite Again this is a non official review, but it should help get the ball rolling. Jeffrey- -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review