https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824628 --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hullo! I'm the "someone else" in question - thanks, Pierre-Yves for catching the duplicate submission. Would definitely be interested in co-maintaining, as a review request I'm submitting depends on this. One consideration for using PyPI for version number and download URL is that 20120425 trumps 2.4.1, so shifting to the more normal release version would require bumping up the epoch -- always a rather.. distasteful solution. And I think the packaging guidelines require VCS tags to be in the release field, not in the version. Another thing from my spec is the %check section -- upstream does not ship any, but I figured it's a good sanity check to try and load every module shipped in the package and see if anything breaks. Everything else is the same -- though we could also drop the declaration of python_sitelib at the top of the spec -- only needed on RHEL 5 per the Packaging:Python guidelines. As for the binary name -- any idea what would be better? %{_bindir}/qrcode seems reasonable. I'm pretty sure gnuhealth does not call the binary directly (just loads the library) so it shouldn't be affected. Then again, 'yum search /usr/bin/qr' indicates that it's not currently in use by anything in our standard repos. -- 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