https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244406 Sandro <gui1ty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Github | |seamustuohy/RTFDE/issues/24 Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-RTFDE - A library |python-rtfde - A library |for extracting HTML content |for extracting HTML content |from RTF encapsulated HTML |from RTF encapsulated HTML --- Comment #2 from Sandro <gui1ty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- > - [!] The License tag reflects the package contents and uses the correct > identifiers. > - [!] The license text is included and marked with %license. > NOTE: Files in the project include GPLv3+ headers, but the metadata and > LICENSE claims LGPLv3. Can you clarify this with upstream? I asked upstream: https://github.com/seamustuohy/RTFDE/issues/24 Let's hope they respond. So far I haven't received any response to my PRs for other issues. > - [!] The packager considers avoiding confusing `%foo_name` macros. (Not a > blocker) I will consider it, if you tell what macros are confusing you. Was it `%pypi_name` by any chance? > - [!] Libraries: The package name has a `python3-` prefix and uses the > canonical project name > NOTE: The SRPM should be named python-rtfde and the binary package should be > named python3-rftde. That part keeps confusing me. Why call the package `python3-rtfde` when the importable module is called `RTFDE`. Anyway, I fixed it. > - You should add `%global distprefix %{nil}` so the forge macros don't add > .20231015git66780b8 to the disttag. This is not a git snapshot; upstream > just doesn't tag releases. I fixed it by using `%autorelease -n`. My intention was to make it clear that this is build from a commit and not a tag. > - It'd be better to use the `%{...}` syntax when referencing the `%forge*` > macros in the specfile. > - The doc subpackage should not require the python3-... subpackage. Well, if that is a blocking requirement, I'd rather get rid of the doc sub package. I don't see how it is useful installing the doc sub package without the package it documents. Since the license still needs to be clarified, I guess this review is stuck for the time being. I've implemented the changes I could: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/extract-msg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06600937-python-rtfde/python-rtfde.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/extract-msg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06600937-python-rtfde/python-rtfde-0.1.0-1.src.rpm -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244406 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202244406%23c2 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
