https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 --- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #5) Thank you for the review! > - The comments in feedstail/utils.py state that the "Storage" class > (the only one in this file) is from the web.py project and thus in > the Public Domain, whereas the file header is the standard GPLv3+ > header. This has to be clarified upstream, I think. Until then, the > license tag should be "GPLv3+ and Public Domain". > That's a good catch. I'll ask upstream. > > Wrong requirement: The package is named "python-feedparser", not > "python-FeedParser". Oops, I'm sorry! This shouldn't happen. I'll correct that in the next version. > > [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. > > See above. > > [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. > > rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm > > feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack > able, hack-able, hackle > feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> > horsetail > feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > > rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm > > feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack > able, hack-able, hackle > feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > > [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. > > feedstail-0.4.0.tar.gz : > MD5SUM this package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2 > MD5SUM upstream package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2 > > [!]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. > > In the %description: > > - Grammar: "It monitor_s_ a feed ...", "Feedstail aim_s_ to be ..." > - The last undescore is probably meant to be a comma. > - (Only cosmetic) There should be a newline between the two paragraphs. > I took the description from pypi.python.org. Nevertheless, you're right, and I'll correct it for the package and report it upstream. > Please add a comment in the specfile for the -doc patch. Asked upstream to include that "patch". > Additional notes: > - The rpmlint warnings are bogus. > - You should think of creating something more usful to the user from the > README.rst, using either rst2html or even rst2man (both from the > python-docutils package) at build time, and install the resulting HTML > and/or manpage. (Surely not a blocker though, just a suggestion.) > > Package is not yet approved, please have a look at the marked issues. I will update this during the next days. -- 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