https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391549
Andrew Bauer <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Andrew Bauer <[email protected]> --- This package looks fine to me as it is. Packaging documentation does seem to prefer Tox over pytest, but it does not make it mandatory. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This is the first package review I've done that uses the BuildSystem tag. https://rpm.org/docs/6.0.x/manual/buildsystem.html This seems to be doing all the traditional %prep, %build, %install steps magically behind the scenes. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but looking at build.log, rpm is indeed doing all the right things to build the package in a Fedora python approved manner. There is no %license tag in the specfile, but the build is picking up the LICENSE file on its own ...and perhaps more importantly rpmlint is not complaining about a missing license, which it certainly would have done. Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391549 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202391549%23c10 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
