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=640455 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2010-10-11 08:26:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > %clean is not required for F-13 and above. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean Right, but it's still required for EPEL <= 5. The same is true for the BuildRoot field and the initial cleaning of the buildroot in %install (both are optional in Fedora but not in EPEL). So it doesn't hurt to add the additional lines but simplifies maintaining a package for Fedora and EPEL. > NA: 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.[4] Nope. :) The tarball contains file LICENSE with the MIT license text. This file is missing in the %doc list. Since this is a Python package, a couple of further requirements apply: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python - The initial macro definition(s) should be wrapped as described in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros - remove the "packaging comments" like "Remove CFLAGS=" and adapt the SPEC accordingly - I suggest to replace the multiple sed statements with sed -i 's/\r//' README.txt find examples -type f -exec sed -i 's/\r//' {} \; - please be a bit more specific in %files: %{python_sitelib}/Pyro-*.egg-info %{python_sitelib}/Pyro/ -- 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