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=687875 --- Comment #10 from PRABIN KUMAR DATTA <linux.n.pkd@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-22 18:08:37 EDT --- /-- [FIX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license You have this as GPLv3+ in the spec, but all of the code has GPLv3 headers, and not GPLv3+. --/ Updated /-- [ ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. It appears that upstream has since updated release 0.9.2, and the 0.9.1 download link included in the spec no longer works. --/ Upgraded to version 0.9.2. Also, I have sent a mail to upstream about this problem. /-- [FIX] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. Look at the output of the desktop-file-validate that you run against the .desktop file. --/ Updated /-- Also, explain to me why you are removing the shebangs in the __init__.py files? I am not saying it's wrong, just curious as to the why. --/ Actually, I received an error message from rpmlint i.e. //.............................................................................. aarddict.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/aarddict/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/python This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. ..............................................................................// After this, I had two options: 1. change the permission of __init__.py file from 644 to 755, if required to be executed? or 2. remove the shebang, if not required? I took a test case that "shebang is not required" and followed few steps to verify my test case which are: 1. I manually checked if there is/are anywhere in the code __init__.py is executed. (something like ./__init__.py) [succeeded ] 2. removed shebang and build it and then install rpm file. [succeeded ] 3. added .arr file to dictionary a) added WordNet 1.7 [succeeded ] b) added WordNet 3.0 [succeeded ] c) added Wikipedia (simple)- dated 20101026-1 [succeeded ] 4. Consult with upstream. //-----------Attached a part of mail's reply from upstream---------------- Shebang in aarddict/__init__.py simply provides another way of launching aarddict ui or command line operations which I found useful at some point (I believe it was handy on Windows where other methods didn't work) - in any case regular users should have no need for this. -------------------------------------------------------------------------// Updated files: SPECS :http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/aarddict.spec SRPMS: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/aarddict-0.9.2-1.fc14.src.rpm //------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Today I was doing further testing on my package and found another problem in it. After conversation with elad661, tibbs and nirik on IRC channel #fedora-devel. I have send a mail to upstream requesting them to place locale and icons files in standard locations and I hope for a quick reply from him. tibbs has also created a ticket on this issue https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/79 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------// Thank You! -- 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