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=812561 --- Comment #4 from Brian C. Lane <bcl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-22 11:29:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > 0.7 wasn't released yet as in setup.py is this: > "version = '0.7dev'" > and commit d404542e says: > "Back to development: 0.7" > and there is no tag, that says 0.7 > and there are no downloads available with version 0.7 > > This means you are shipping an unreleased version and therefore need the proper > pre-release naming convention: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages I'm not sure I know what you mean here. Should I change the Release to be: Release: 0.2.dev.%{checkout}%{?dist} Having dev and the checkout info seems redundant to me, but after rereading the naming guidelines I guess that's the most correct way to do it. > > > Why aren't you using the released 0.6.2? > It seems run{,call,eval} and the python3 support are new since then. > I wanted to use the most recent version available, 0.6.1 was released in 10/2011 (I assume you mean 0.6.1, as there is no 0.6.2). > > It would be great to ask upstream, what license exactly is meant with GPL as > "GPL" seems to be bad: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL > > As upstream doesn't add a LICENSE/COPYING file, it's a SHOULD anyway to ask > them to add one... I'll see if upstream will add this and clarify the license. -- 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