https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119087 --- Comment #5 from Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #4) > (In reply to Sergio Pascual from comment #2) > > (In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #1) > > > > > [!]: 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. > > > > > > ---> Please add COPYING to the %files-section > > > > There is no COPYING in the tarball. Are you sure you are looking at the > > correct one? > > Thanks for that point. > What is about https://github.com/alecthomas/voluptuous/blob/master/COPYING ? > Why isn't it included in the tarball? > > And from voluptuous.py: > > # This software is licensed as described in the file COPYING, which > # you should have received as part of this distribution. > Yes, this is a packaging error, I have reported it https://github.com/alecthomas/voluptuous/issues/80 I can use the zip from github instead. I will post a new spec > > > > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > > > names). > > > > > > ---> Please replace rm with %{__rm} and cp with %{__install} > > > > > > > This guideline is a about directory names, not command names. If fact, from > > the guidelines: > > > > Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a > > need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For > > example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is > > acceptable. > > Furthermore, it states: > Having macros in a Source: or Patch: line is a matter of style. Some people > enjoy the ready readability of a source line without macros. Others prefer > the ease of updating for new versions when macros are used. > > And rpm --eval %{__rm} still works. > I do not follow you here. > (In reply to Sergio Pascual from comment #3) > > BTW, if you are doing the review, please assign the bug to yourself, thanks! > > I think changing the status to Assigned is more important. If you want to > know who is responsible for this, one can also reference to the change. But > you are right. Assign to yourself so that you can search bugs assigned to you in bugziila. If you have a lot bugs is quite handy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review