Hide Forgot
Description of problem: Test Bug for python-bugzilla testing Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Tis is a test comment
This is a multi line comment Another line Another line Another line Another line Another line Another line
ARRAY(0x1504d010)
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [ ] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1] [ ] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [ ] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. [ ] Package consistently uses macros. [ ] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ] PreReq is not used. [ ] Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2] [ ] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)). [ ] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. [ ] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work. [ ] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ ] The spec file handles locales properly. [ ] Changelog in prescribed format. [ ] Rpmlint output is silent. [ ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [ ] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
http://timlau.fedorapeople.org/files/test/review-test/python-test.spec http://timlau.fedorapeople.org/files/test/review-test/python-test-1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm