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=710194 --- Comment #3 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-02 16:17:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Unless you plan on using the same spec file > with EPEL, some elements of the spec file can be removed: the python_sitelib > definition at the top, BuildRoot, "rm -rf %{buildroot}" at the top of %install, > the %clean script, and %defattr in %files. I was aware of everything except the "rm -rf..." in install and the %defattr. Have the packaging guidelines been updated to reflect all of this? > [-] follows package naming guidelines: according to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 > this package should be named python-tepache. Hmm... The only problem I see is that tepache isn't a module but a end user script. SimpleGladeApp.py is the module. I don't really care one way of the other personally, as it will work for PySDM either way, but I worry that someone installing python-tepache will be expecting a module instead of a executable... What do you think? Richard -- 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