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-musicbrainz2


           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-08-16 16:42 EST -------
Okay, I'll give you a review.

 * rpmlint doesn't show anything
 * package is named good
 * ! improper spec file name, change it to python-musicbrainz2.spec
 * package meets Packaging Guidelines
 * package is licensed with open-source compatible license (BSD)
 * license file is included in %doc
 * spec file is written in American English
 * spec file is legible
 * upstream md5sum matches md5sum of the source used to build the
package (2ff59193f357c84e9e7b2f89356c0939)
 * BR is listed properly
 * there is no locales
 * there is no need to ldconfig
 * package is not designed to be relocatable
 * package own directories correctly
 * permissions are set correctly
 * package has a good %clean section
 * package handles macros properly
 * there is no need to -doc subpackage
 * %doc doesn't affect runtime
 * there is no need to -devel subpackage
 * package doesn't contain any .la files
 * no gui

 * correct spec file name, only to show that it is correct ;)
 * package owns test command, so you should add %check section
to spec file and run %{__python} test in it

If you do what I mention above, I'll approve this package.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to