Spec URL: https://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-testfixtures/python-testfixtures.spec SRPM URL: https://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-testfixtures/python-testfixtures-4.10.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: TestFixtures is a collection of helpers and mock objects that are useful when writing unit tests or doc tests.If you're wondering why "yet another mock object library", testing is often described as an art form and as such some styles of library will suit some people while others will suit other styles. This library contains common test fixtures the author found himself repeating ... Fedora Account System Username: hvad
%description should not be indented. Also, it's not necessary to repeat the description text. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879740#c13. Also, it's not necessary to repeat the Summary. Use %{summary} in the second and subsequent ones. .egg-info doesn't have to be deleted. The guidelines say that "binary eggs" have to be deleted, but that's not it. Package is almost OK, but please fix those cosmetic issues.
Hi, I fix description and summary with %_description and %{summary}. Is what I need to delete .egg-info ? Best regard
(In reply to David Hannequin from comment #2) > Is what I need to delete .egg-info ? There's no need to delete it in .spec. If you do delete it, it's not a big deal, but it's unnecessary.
Hi, Spec URL: https://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-testfixtures/python-testfixtures.spec SRPM URL: https://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-testfixtures/python-testfixtures-4.10.1-1.fc25.src.rpm Can you review again ? Thanks
Ooops, sorry, I missed that. An occasional ping or even NEEDINFO button often helps in such cases. There's really no need to delete .egg-info. + package name is OK + license is OK (MIT) + license is specified correctly + modern python packaging template is used + %python_provide is used + builds and installs OK + dependencies appear correct Package is APPROVED.
What do you do with this package ? Why open an other bug 1445824 ?
(In reply to David Hannequin from comment #6) > What do you do with this package ? Why open an other bug 1445824 ? This package is already present in Fedora; my request for review was handled faster. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1445824 ***