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=672205 --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-07 19:28:36 EDT --- I am very sorry for taking so long to get back to this, but here's a review. Builds fine and rpmlint is silent. Unfortunately there are a few problems: Your package is noarch; there is no reason to define python_sitearch since you won't ever reference that macro. The code is not GPLv2. For example, Model/EventHandlers/__init__.py and Model/macros.py are GPLv3+. The other code doesn't appear to even have any license statements; setup.py just says "GPL" and the LICENSE file explicitly says that if the code doesn't state a version, you can use any version you like. So upstream (which I guess means you) really needs to clarify that. It would be best to follow the GPL itself for that, since it tells you what to include in your source files, but at minimum you need to state somewhere what version of the GPL is in use. When we see differing licenses on code we always wonder if the code comes from another project altogether, which would run afoul of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries. I'm not sure if that's the case since the copyright holder seems to be a committer on the project. But if that's the case then the project seems to be a bit confused as to which license is supposed to be on its code, which raises other questions. You should not in general have Requires: python; rpm should figure that out for itself. You don't usually want to add compressed manpages; rpm will compress them properly using whatever compression method happens to be preferred. I guess upstream provides them compressed for some odd reason so there's not much you can do unless you want to uncompress them in the spec, which seems kind of pointless. There is no need to duplicate all of the documentation in the -examples package. It has a dependency on the main package so all of that documentation is guaranteed to be available. The -examples package includes a README file which should be documentation. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 93d971e6f162d4bdaea6ab2735e9dbed1348d4bd64927e9bb1cb5fcca6dc2a54 pynag-0.4.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summaries are OK. * descriptions are OK. * dist tag is present. X license field does not appear to match the actual license. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. X final provides: pynag-0.4-4.fc18.noarch.rpm pynag = 0.4-4.fc18 = /usr/bin/python X python >= 2.3 python(abi) = 2.7 pynag-examples-0.4-4.fc18.noarch.rpm pynag-examples = 0.4-4.fc18 = /usr/bin/python pynag ? There might be bundled libraries. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. X documentation is duplicated between main and -examples packages. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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