Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871191 Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #4) > But today I see Github offering me this link: > https://github.com/kparal/sendKindle/archive/v2.tar.gz > > That is nearly perfect. The filename is static now ("v2.tar.gz"), no git > commit hash, unfortunately it doesn't contain a project name so it will mess > up my SOURCES/. (I don't know how to deal with that, any advice welcome). > > fedora-review now says: > [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > Note: Source0 (v2.1.tar.gz) > > Isn't is possible to somehow say that the downloaded file should be renamed? That's why my suggestion was using "#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz" at the end of URL. Try it out > > > > You are missing requires on python. > > I thought that rpmbuild does that automatically. Isn't this enough? > > $ rpm -qRp > /var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result/sendKindle-2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm > /usr/bin/python > python(abi) = 2.7 > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 > rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 My bad, I am seeing double > > Also as upstream you might want to > > considering supporting python 3. > > I actually already received a patch from someone. But I don't want to > maintain two separate versions. Once Fedora switches to Python 3, I'll > definitely adjust the program. Not something I am going to block on, but it's fairly simple to have support for both python 3 and 2 in single code (imports from future help). Especially true since you have no dependencies besides python itself and it's ~8kb of code. Up to you in any case > > as for licensing, package is GPLv3+ and part 4 of the license states that > > "...;and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the > > Program.". You should therefore both as upstream and packager distribute > > text of the license together with the source code. > > Actually I think this (and all other paragraphs) do not apply for the > software author. The packaging guidelines also seem to indicate that (A)GPL > does not require adding the very text of the license: > "Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative > works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT." > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines > > But that's just nitpicking :-) I included the license text in the upstream > code and in the RPM. Right, they don't apply to you as the author but they apply to Fedora as distribution (ergo to you as packager). Theoretically it would have been enough to just add it into spec as separate source, but in case other distributions will want to package it you will make it easier for them. > > I have updated the files: > Spec URL: http://kparal.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/sendKindle/sendKindle.spec > SRPM URL: > http://kparal.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/sendKindle/sendKindle-2.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Right now I don't see any issues so I am approving/sponsoring you. You might want to update that source url though. Please when you ask for CVS add me into initial CC for the package. Thanks -- 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