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=675104 --- Comment #7 from Pavel Zhukov <pavel@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-05 12:08:48 EST --- >> Please mention the pointless macros. you can find additional info here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311#c9 macros starting with "__" is pointless because they do nothing >> Do I remove the %{__rm} macro from %install section also? Yes, you do >> There is a LICENSE file in the root of the src dir. I've check twice: There's no LICENSE file in src dir of your SRPM but it is in Git repo. Currently, your package doesn't contain license text but it contain 11 points to this one grep -R LICENSE * | wc -l 11 Please contact upstream to clarify this situation (create github's issue, send mail or other). If LICENSE is MIT you can bring LICENSE file as Source1 or Patch (with bug id, mail id in comment) for example, you should add it to %doc list of %files section and I'll aprove tweepy package. >> As far as I know, python2-devel doesn't exist in yum repository, there exists python-devel ( for python2) and python3-devel. Ok.sorry. I think PythonPackaging Guidelines is out-of-date >> If it is error-free, I will package it for EPEL. You have to add BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) to your spec file. Summary: Please replace pointless macros, add BuildRoot (or remove %clean) and fix LICENSE issue for approving -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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