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=702989 Shaun McCance <shaunm@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(shaunm@xxxxxxxxx) | --- Comment #6 from Shaun McCance <shaunm@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-26 16:27:29 EDT --- Regarding the License field in the spec file, the COPYING file basically says "GPLv3+, but the ITS files can be modified and redistributed without restriction." I do have COPYING and COPYING.GPL3 in %doc, but should License say something else to reflect this? I assumed the License field is from a semi-controlled vocabulary. Presumably there are other packages that are GPL with exceptions. I added a man page to git. rpmlint did warn about that. I've always been told to use /usr/bin/env for python, perl, etc for portability. I don't know of any modern Linux distro that doesn't put python in /usr/bin, but I don't know about other Unixes. I guess I could just change it and wait for bug reports. (I notice that xml2po uses /usr/bin/python in the shebang, and I don't remember ever seeing a bug about that.) So here's what I'll do: * Drop BuildRoot, the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in %install, and %clean * Change the shebang to "/usr/bin/python -s" upstream * Roll a 1.0.2 with the shebang change and the man page * Do a new spec file and SRPM with these changes Anything else? -- 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