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=252108 --- Comment #41 from Oded Arbel <oded@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-12 18:21:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #40) > This is unusual> > Provides: %{modulename} = %{version} > It bloats the metadata. Is it necessary? consider removing I think its useful because people may want to depend on "html5lib" instead of "python-html5lib", but I see that no one else is doing this - so I removed it. > in %install stage, rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is redundant. OK. > Add Build Requires on python-devel and RPM would pick up the requires > automatically. You can remove the explicit requires. I don't agree - html5lib is a pure python implementation and does not require python-devel to build or run, so there's no need to force the user to install it. python-setuptools on the other hand is required for building the package but requiring python-devel will not cause it to be installed. As for the explicit run-time requirement on python, RPM indeed picks that up automatically, so I removed this explicit requirement. > %files can be reduced to > > %doc examples README > %{python_sitelib}/%{modulename} I need to add %{python_sitelib}/%{modulename}-*.egg-info otherwise it complains that these files are not installed but not packaged. I'm not an expert on Python and I'm not sure what the egg-info files are, but I have a feeling they are important. Regarding the other lines, I'm pretty sure I had a good reason to do it but I can't figure it out now so I cleaned it up. > Ideally, upstream should update README to explicitly mention the license and > you must contact upstream to ask them to include a copy of the license. I've asked on the project's Google group a couple of times to include a license file, but with very little response. I've now opened an issue on that in their issue tracker (http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/issues/detail?id=188) but I doubt it will get any better response. If this is requirement is a must and the package cannot get into Fedora without fulfilling it, then we will just have to wait. If upstream doesn't get back on that issue within a week or so, I'll open up a personal email campaign ;-) Updated RPM files are in the links above, updated SPEC file will be attached shortly. -- 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