https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014336 --- Comment #6 from Erik Johnson <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #5) > First, I'm not really satisfied with the behavior of your download links. > Reviewers should be able to simply right-click on a link to save its target. > Dropbox allows this actually, but it seems you've copied the file link from > your browser's address bar. This doesn't point to the file itself, rather to > a website where I have to click on a button to download it. To avoid this, > open your Dropbox in the browser, select the desired file and click on "Copy > public link" (sorry, could be some different, I'm using Dropbox in German). > Even the available file manager plugins for Nautilus, Dolphin etc. should > have such an option. > Well, I do not use a file manager, and Dropbox has long since gotten rid of the "get public link" option. The only option now is a "share link" option, which provides the URLs I specified. However, I did some digging and the the public direct links are available if you right-click the "Download" button on the links I originally posted, and copy the URL. Given that knowledge, here are the public download links: Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/dyrl1jkyiwhhzxj/python-halite.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/4shqedab21j894f/python-halite-0.1.01-1.el6.src.rpm > > Some of the issues need to be fixed or investigated: > > I don't know why $RPM_SOURCE_DIR is not allowed, but I assume there are good > reasons for. It is unusual at least, never seen this before in a spec file. > Just use %RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead. > This has been replaced. > There are some scripts which have a shebang, but are not executable. Scripts > in %{python_sitelib} don't need a shebang. Please remove them. > Done. And I've notified upstream about this as well, thanks. > Don't mix spaces and tabs. I recommend spaces, because this way the spec > file looks the same in any text editor, independent from the configured tab > width. > Fixed. > The download location for the license file is not available, please > investigate. > I used ${version} instead of %{version}. In addition, I should have used the "raw.github.com" link to get the raw text, so I fixed that as well. > > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 8 > BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel > %else > BuildRequires: python-setuptools > %endif > > First, we don't need any definitions which refer to Fedora 7 and earlier. > Well, you could apply this condition to EPEL 5 which is based on FC6. > Besides that, python-setuptools-devel is virtually provided by > python-setuptools. As far as I can see, this definition can be omitted. > > Removed, thanks. > Consider to use %global instead of %define. See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#. > 25global_preferred_over_.25define for more information. > Fixed. > > Last but not least, please get rid of the spec parts which are only needed > for EPEl 5 once your package will be imported into EPEL >= 6 and Fedora: > > * BuildRoot definition > * The header which defines python_sitelib > * Initial cleaning of buildroot in %install > * The %clean section > * %defattr line in %files I'm sorry, but I had trouble understanding what you meant here. Do you mean that these parts are not needed anymore? Or that they should be enclosed within %if blocks like so: %if ! (0%{?rhel} >= 6 || 0%{?fedora} > 12) BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %endif -- 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=KtjlpkydRx&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review