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=564425 --- Comment #2 from Sebastian Dziallas <sebastian@xxxxxxxx> 2010-02-27 17:07:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) I uploaded a new version. Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-tamtam.spec SRPM URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-tamtam-0-0.2.20100201git.fc12.src.rpm > Issues: > - The sugar-tamtam package should be called sugar-tamtam-common because it is > not a standalone package. The srpm and spec will still be called sugar-tamtam. I moved the common files into a common package. Rpmlint complains now about the main package containing no binary, though. > - Due to python3 the python guidelines have changed recently. Please update the > macro definitions acording to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#Macros > > - You can drop python_sitelib because it is not needed here. Both done! > - make is not verbose so compiler flags cannot be verified. I added the V=1 parameter, so that should be good, too. > - add -p to preserve timestamps when using cp -r Done. > - the command to install the package should be > %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > instead of > python ./setup.py install --prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_prefix} We discussed this on IRC; setup.py seems to have issues with the other invocation. > - Typos: organise -> organize, synthesiser -> synthesizer Fixed these and a few other typos. > - backup-file-in-package: Are these files needed? I don't think so and have removed them. -- 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