[Bug 2252512] Review Request: conda-build - Commands and tools for building conda packages

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252512



--- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3)
> Issues:
> =======
> - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
>   in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
>   for the package is included in %license.
>   Note: License file license_family.cpython-312.opt-1.pyc is not marked as
>   %license
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
> 
>   This is because the main package does not contain a license file, and does
>   not have a dependency on the python3 package, which does contain a license
>   file.  Is it correct that neither package depends on the other?  If so,
>   the license file should be added to the main package with %license.

Dependency added.

> - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
>   in the spec URL.
>   Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
>   /home/jamesjer/2252512-conda-build/diff.txt
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
> 
>   The diff shows one minor change to a file named .git_archival.txt.  I guess
>   upstream must have moved the 3.27.0 tag after you downloaded it.  Not a big
>   deal.  In any case, version 3.28.0 has been released.

This should be fixed now with the update to 3.28.0.

> - Regarding the License field, conda_build/version.py carries a BSD-2-Clause
>   notice at the top.

Noted and asked upstream about it.

> - See the non-executable-script warning from rpmlint below.  Should that file
>   be in the package?  If so, should it be executable?

I'm not entirely sure.  It definitely should be executable.  I think it may be
a template file that is copied elsewhere in which case it should retain its
shebang too.  So I think we leave it as is.

> - See the no-manual-page-for-binary rpmlint warnings below.  Is there any way
>   to generate man pages for those binaries, say with help2man?

Generated conda-build with the included sphinx sources.  conda-build is really
the driver for the conda command helpers so I think this is sufficient.

> - See the description-line-too-long rpmlint warnings below.  Can you reformat
>   %description so that lines do not wrap on systems limited to 80 columns?

Fixed.

Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/conda-build.spec
SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/conda-build-3.28.0-1.fc40.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252512

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202252512%23c4
--
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux