https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015868 --- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Yajo from comment #0) > First of all, sorry for using OBS. Please take it as just a way to upload > the files. Package builds fine on Fedora, tested with mock. We could care less which hosting provider you use to host your files, but the link to the spec file does need to be a plaintext version, not one that uses HTML and syntax highlighting. Automated tools like fedora-review <https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/> won't be able to read it otherwise. Unfortunately, OBS seems to require a login to link to raw content, so you might need to use a different hosting provider unless you can resolve that somehow (or if I'm just an idiot and can't figure out OBS ;-). If you do not have access to alternate hosting space, you can request access to fedorapeople.org by filing a ticket in the packager sponsors' trac instance: https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/ I'd also add that anyone with a Fedora account can run scratch builds on our Koji buildsystem if they want to. This explains how it's done: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Install_the_client_tools_.28Koji.29_and_set_up_your_certificate Please note that you cannot link to scratch builds from reviews, since they're garbage collected regularly. (This isn't the case for OBS, so SRPM links there ought to be fine. The non-plaintext spec is still an issue though.) Spec review: > # Afectado por el bug https://github.com/hlamer/qutepart/issues/1 y no deja > # construir. Volver a intentarlo en sucesivas versiones. Please use English in spec comments. (Just to be clear, this doesn't extend to the Spanish summary/description, which is done correctly. :-) > License: GPLv2 The README file indicates this is under the LGPLv2. The original Kate sources are under LGPLv2+, however. Please clarify this with upstream and correct the License field in your spec file. > %description > Qutepart uses Kate syntax highlighters (XML files), contains port from > Javascript to Python of Kate indenters (12% of the code base in version 1.0.0), > and doesn't contain Katepart code. Grammar nit: "contains port" -> "contains a port" Also, the statistics of what is ported really isn't relevant to end users. You can remove the stuff in parenthesis. > Nothing is wrong with Katepart. Qutepart has been created for possibility to > reuse highlighters and indenters in projects where KDE dependency is not > acceptable. More grammar nits: "created for possibility to reuse highlighters and indenters" is a little awkward. I'd suggest changing it to something like "created so other applications can reuse its highlighers and indenters". "where KDE dependency" -> "where a KDE dependency" > %build > %{__python} setup.py build This package contains binary Python extensions, so the distribution compiler flags need to be used. For more information, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags For Python packages, that ends up being something like: CFLAGS="%{buildroot}" %{__python} setup.py build -- 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