https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286699 --- Comment #5 from Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #4) > Hi Stephen! > > My review is informal, as I am currently working towards becoming a package > maintainer. > Much appreciated! > I assume this is for EPEL 7 only, since python-django-1.6 is only in EPEL 7. > Yes, I forgot to note that in the original request, but it's intended for EPEL 7 only in order to support the newest version of Review Board. > 1) I think it's best to be explicit about the version of Python used. You > can use %{__python2} in place of %{__python}, or make use of the %py2_build > and %py2_install macros, which should be available in F22+ and EPEL 7. > I agree, I will do that. > > 2) fedora-review is unhappy due to un-owned directories: > > [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/multiselectfield/locale/es, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/multiselectfield/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7 > /site-packages/multiselectfield/forms, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/multiselectfield, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/multiselectfield/db, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/multiselectfield/locale > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/multiselectfield, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/multiselectfield/locale/es, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/multiselectfield/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7 > /site-packages/multiselectfield/forms, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/multiselectfield/locale, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/multiselectfield/db > > I think the correct solution is to change > > %{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield/*.py* > %{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield/db/*.py* > %{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield/forms/*.py* > > to %{python2_sitelib}/multiselectfield Thanks. > > > 3) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files > doesn't seem to mention .po locale files, but I don't think they need to be > packaged since they are just the human-readable version of the .mo files. > However, I am far from an expert on the subject. > > > I hope this informal review is useful, good luck with your formal review! Much obliged. I'll update this with a new Spec and SRPM shortly. -- 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