https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #1) > Generic things: > > - what about replacing (not to have it hardcoded): > %global python_sitearch %{_libdir}/python2.6/site-packages > > with something like: > > %global pybasever 2.6 > %global __python /usr/bin/python%{pybasever} > > %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from > distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1)")} > > I will do if you like but I always think given the the package is completely hardcoded to EPEL5 anyway it makes little difference to make the variables also hardcoded. If you do make them dynamic utilizing python2.6 within these %globals then you get non fatal koji errors when the .src.rpm is created which is ugly. Essentially other people have made me go from dynamic to static in exactly the same case. > +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing > > MUST Items: > [-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. > > python26-cheetah.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.1-2 > ['2.4.4-2.el5.centos', '2.4.4-2.centos'] Agreed, fixed in next package. > python26-cheetah.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/Cheetah/_namemapper.so > - please add the executable flag to this one Agreed, I even changed it away from that for some reason. Fixed. > [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > > The LICENSE file does not mention any specific license, the PKG-INFO file > then has: > ... > License: UNKNOWN > ... > Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License > ... > > so it looks like MIT, but is it sure and could it be more explicit? The LICENSE file is in essence a combination of MIT license as documented here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT I feel this qualifies as MIT. > [-] 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 must be included in %doc. > > The source contains a LICENSE file and you include it, but the text does not > match the MIT license text i could find. > Same point as above. > [-] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be > set > with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > > Missing executable flag in _namemapper.so. > Corrected Fresh packages: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-cheetah/python26-cheetah.spec http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python26-cheetah/python26-cheetah-2.4.4-2.el5.src.rpm -- 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