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=554187 Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |NotReady --- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-15 23:52:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > I'm not an approved packager yet, so I'll give you an informal review in hopes > that it will help. Thanks anyway. Great review! > * Meets packaging guidelines > > The version you give in the changelog (0.3) doesn't match that of the package > (0.3.1). In fact, I'm confused overall as to what the program's actual version > number is. The tarball, readme, and Debian package indicate that it is 0.3, > while the version given in the spec file is 0.3.1. If this is a svn checkout > of a post-0.3 tree, the Release field should indicate so. Upstream released 0.3 and after fixing, 0.3-1 was released. -> I used 0.3.1 as version number, because there is no other way to reflect this (Debian should be wrong here). They also can't explain why using '-' and not '.' there. Don't know, if they will change the version numbering in the future. -> It's not a svn checkout (you also did a md5check above, I downloaded it from there, too). > > * License > > Portions of a couple sources seem to have licenses other than GPLv3+. > - shedskin/lib/time.cpp: LGPLv2.1+ > - shedskin/lib/builtin.cpp: Paul Hsieh derivative license > > The Paul Hsieh derivative license is not allowed in Fedora. However, the > LICENSING file gives MIT licenses for most everything in shedskin/lib; were > those portions of the code relicensed? > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses Thanks for that. Don't know, why I missed that. Will ask upstream for that. > * License field in spec matches > > Most files in shedskin/lib are MIT-licensed according to the LICENSING file, > but the License field does not reflect this. > > * BuildRequires correct > > Since you're providing a setuptools egg you need BuildRequires: > python-setuptools-devel > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs#Providing_Eggs_using_Setuptools Quoting from there: 'When upstream uses setuptools to provide eggs [...]' Upstream uses distutils and not setuptools, so there should be no need to add this as BR. New URLS till resolving the license issue :( Spec URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/shedskin.spec SRPM URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/shedskin-0.3.1-2.fc12.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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review