Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885495 --- Comment #3 from Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Maxim: I have bad news python-pyasn1 not is available in epel5 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5620 I tried koji build and fail the build of package http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4771725 http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1725/4771725/mock_output.log Therefore may not provide the package for epel5, unless you talk to the package maintainer, the maintainer is rcritten his email is: rcritten at redhat dot com, As an aside, if hypothetically we could build for now epel5: the line what I marked with asterisk (buildroot), should not be there %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 5 %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")} * BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) %endif Usually, going after Source0: Source0: http://keyczar.googlecode.com/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) - Note that if you can not obtain of the package python-pyasn1 in epel5, will need to remove all specific references to building to epel5 (buildroot, %clean and the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT), IMHO you should build for the latest releases of Fedora and then may ask change request according to this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages - Please bump the release number of the spec file on changes and try to write a meaningful changelog entry https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs There are issues with the license (there is no proper license file) ===== MUST items ===== [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/keyczar/885495-python- keyczar/licensecheck.txt Please see the next link for more details on how to proceed. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hEsMycPI49&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review