Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-libgmail-docs - Documents and examples for python-libgmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=422841 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@xxxxxx 2007-12-13 12:09 EST ------- License: GPLv2+ is not correct. $ grep License *.py archive.py:# License: GPL 2.0 gcp.py:# License: GPL 2.0 gmailftpd.py:# License: Dual GPL 2.0 and PSF (This file only.) gmailpopd.py:# License: Dual GPL 2.0 and PSF (This file only.) gmailsmtp.py:# License: GPL 2.0 readmail.py:License: GPL 2.0 sendmsg.py:# License: GPL 2.0 test_notifier.py:# License: GPL 2.0 unreadmsgcount.py:# License: GPL 2.0 Unlike in most packages, I think shipping the *.py as executable, even in %docs, would be a good thing in this case. Some of them are even so useful as is that I'd personally consider shipping them in %{_bindir}, renamed eg. as archive.py -> libgmail-archive(.py). If the *.py are not going to be made executable, I think the dependency on python-libgmail is superfluous and should be dropped - without the executable bits this package is really just a bunch of docs with no dependencies. Using %exclude to exclude the unwanted *.pyc and *.pyo would sound like a better way to me to omit them than overriding the whole %__os_install_post. "Documentation" would be a more suitable value for the Group tag IMO. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review