https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991208 --- Comment #5 from Wolfgang Ulbrich <fedora@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #3) > Since I started this just before it was taken, I'll add this as an informal > review. > > > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on > packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly > versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST > use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. > Note: Unversionned Python dependency found. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/Python/#_dependencies I saw that for myself in fedora review tool. But which dependency does have a unversioned python- prefix ? > - Should atril_dbus.py really have a shebang at all? > IOW instead of fixing the shebang, should it just be removed? As i understand this plugin the file needs to be executable to connect with atril document viewer. > - why is the license "or LGPLv2+"? Nothing LGPL shows up in the license > check. will be fixed > - no %license or %doc in %files will be fixed -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
