https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985967 --- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Cleber Rodrigues from comment #6) > (In reply to Eduardo Echeverria from comment #3) > > Hi clever: > > Thanks for calling me "clever", but judging from the amount of mistakes here > I wouldn't call myself that :) Hi Cleber, have mistakes doesn't make less "clever" ;) > > Please provide the full url in Source0 (https://github.com/clebergnu/arc) , > > for this, handle the url following the recommendations exposed in > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github > > Is is possible to only use the version tag for the Source URL, such as: > > Source0: https://github.com/clebergnu/%{shortname}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz > > Instead of the commit hash? Since I plan to also host the Fedora spec file > on the upstream repo, this would create an "egg and chicken" kind of problem. No, isn't possible, precisely this guideline contemplates the need of a hash for identify the commit that you are packing, i cite the guideline "For a number of reasons (immutability, availability, uniqueness), you must use the full commit revision hash when referring to the sources" This can be solved: - You can make a version of the spec on-demand generated by a makefile target in the upstream repo, doing a snapshot automatically. FYI, this method isn't valid for fedora > > > > Use in BuildRequires: python2-devel instead of python >= 2.7, see > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires > > > > Requires: python >= 2.7 > For build a package made in python, you should have as BR python{2,3}-devel depending of the implementation (in this case python2-devel). in the Requires isn't neccesary use explicit versioning since that the system-wide Fedora version is 2.7 ➜ ~ repoquery -qf python python-0:2.7.5-1.fc19.x86_64 python-0:2.7.5-3.fc19.x86_64 python-0:2.7.5-3.fc19.i686 python-0:2.7.5-1.fc19.i686 > > > > rpmlint out: > > > > python-arc.noarch: W: no-documentation > > Add license, README, etc in %doc (btw, not is included in your spec) > > OK. BTW, is it OK to use "README.md" as the "official README"? Yes, i don't see any problem. > > > > python-arc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/arc/jsonrpc.py > > the license header haven't a fsf updated address, that would a minor > > problem, if it were not because also part of a library from another project, > > this in fedora have a clear policy, see > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries > > Since this is a "library" with about 60 lines of code that was modified for > arc's requirements, and it's not packaged in Fedora, I assume it's OK to > "bundle" it, but update the FSF address to remove this noise. Right? > What would happen if that project ends up being packaged in Fedora? Can you commit your changes in upstream? Are your changes a deviation of the original project? Best Regards -- 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=4zllozkeEX&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review