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=514509 Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |opensource@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-02 04:54:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > I'm unsure of the name. The upstream site calls itself "pyhunspell" but the > tarball and the module are called hunspell. The guidelines only say "when in > doubt, use the name of the module that you type to import it in a script", > which would be "hunspell" (and to prepend "python-" if "py" isn't in the name). > Not really sure what's correct here. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 Imho pyhunspell is ok here, because the project calls itself pyhunspell. But I asked the packaging list to be sure: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-August/msg00002.html > %description could use a period. But it is not a complete sentence. > I note that the compiler flags all appear twice; I think setup.py build gets > them right without having them passed, but I'm not certain of it. They come from rpmdev-newspec -t python, maybe they are needed for EPEL. (In reply to comment #3) > Bjorn's right about the licence; I grepped for lesser as usual and of course > didn't find it. You can bug upstream for a copy of the license text if you > like; that's your business. I don't find it productive to say that for well > over half of the packages I see which don't bother to include license text. I will the change the license tag in the spec before importing it. Here is a ticket to include the license text in the tarball and handle the other issues: http://code.google.com/p/pyhunspell/issues/detail?id=1 -- 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