[Bug 838675] Review Request: python-beautifulsoup4 - HTML/XML parser for quick-turnaround applications like screen-scraping

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675

--- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> ---
> [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
> rpmlint python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
>
> python-beautifulsoup4.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-html5lib
> python-beautifulsoup4.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-html5lib
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

This can be ignored, rpmlint grabs the "lib" in the package name.

> [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
>      Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
> [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>      $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>      Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
> [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>      Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
>      for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
> [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>      beginning of %install.
>      Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
> See: None

All of this can be ignored if you're planning also to build for EPEL 5,
otherwise please remove all the old directives.

> [!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
>      license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
>      license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>      other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>      Guidelines.

The package itself is built correctly as it does include the text license file
in the package but the license itself is MIT (see COPYING.txt and project's
website) and not BSD as stated in the spec file.

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]