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=476600 --- Comment #5 from Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-29 13:52:54 EDT --- Any comments to rpmlint warnings like the following? python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775 python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in the global namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could be put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess it could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but instead recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything else.) Shouldn't some of the subpackages require a specific version of the others? There must be a reason the modules are distributed in one tar file? Upstream project on pypi is ZODB3, and ZODB3 is also used in the tar name. But it provides the ZODB module, and it seems like upstream consistently refers to it as ZODB (or ZODB 3.9). Shouldn't the package be called python-ZODB instead? -- 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