https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015868 Yajo <yajo.sk8@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(tchollingsworth@g | |mail.com) | |needinfo?(yajo.sk8@xxxxxxxx | |m) | --- Comment #15 from Yajo <yajo.sk8@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #12) > The %license line is required for any new spec file. OK, I'll do it but then please fix the docs. The contraiction I said in comment 11 is in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_prefixes > If there's no license > text, request one from upstream or suggest a standard text for the license > upstream is claiming. > > Would you mind to rename the package to just "qutepart" and remove the > python prefix from name? If so, you can get rid of the project macro and > please use %{name} consistently, also for the %files section. > > Really do not know why python is needed in the name cause the package > installs a standalone application, not a library or the like. Sorry but did you actually review my package? It has an upstream LICENSE file and it IS a library, so the naming is correct according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 > Are you > planning to do a parallel python3 build where applicable (currently not > possible for EPEL)? > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Python#Avoiding_collisions_between_the_python_2_and_python_3_stacks Right now upstream only supports python 2.7. https://github.com/hlamer/qutepart#building-and-installation-on-linux (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #13) > Hmm. We have the problem that I can not sponsor you. This review can not > continue without a sponsor. :( > > Bug #177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) says: > Warren Togami 2006-05-04 15:42:33 CEST > People should not sit in NEED-SPONSOR status and just expect sponsorship. > The > best way to get sponsorship is to continue doing other work, like reviewing > other packages, giving helpful advice, or submitting more packages for > review. > Having approved packages is *NOT* the requirement for gaining cvsextras > sponsorship. Instead demonstrating that you understand the packaging > guidelines > and Fedora process to sponsor members is what is necessary to gain > sponsorship. I understand that. See comment 6. I have not much time from my daily job to review lots of packages. If an official packager wants to take this work and close these bugs by himself it's OK for me. It would be a bit frustrating not to become a packager, as I usually make packages for fedora that I'd like to share with others, but I prefer to actually see enki in the repos that to wait endlessly to have a packager badge in my sleeve. (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #14) > bug 984560 buildrequires and requires bug 1015868 - that's the dependency! Indeed. -- 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