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=473835 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter <fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-26 17:16:05 EDT --- Thank you guys. (In reply to comment #4) > MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. NEEDSWORK > -Please add COPYING to the doc section After the review of Gratien I removed COPYING. But the fixed version came back with 0.1.2. COPYING added (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Notes: > > -Your package should BuildRequire: python-devel instead of python > > Actually, python-setuptools-devel pulls in python-devel, so that's not a > problem. But it's better to BR it exclusively. For newer Fedora releases that's true. For releases < F-11 the guidelines told another story. Changed. > (The ./ in front of setup.py is unnecessary when run via python.) Removed > I suggest using autoarchive instead of %{name} in the %files section for > consistency. Changed > Requires: lzma is not enough IMHO. The package seems to need also tar, gzip and > bzip2. Yes, you are right, the 'archiver class' shows points that let indicate that all this tools are needed. Here are the updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc11.src.rpm -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review