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: xxdiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436677 thomas.moschny@xxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |thomas.moschny@xxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From thomas.moschny@xxxxxx 2008-04-05 05:28 EST ------- Ok, I can do the review. Some remarks: - you probably should move the xxdiff-tools to a subpackage, because they require python, whereas xxdiff itself does not - please use the standard %python_sitelib macro definition, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python - build the python files in %build %{__python} setup.py build - no need to record INSTALLED_FILES. something like %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot} should do - consider creating an egg-info for f7 and f8, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs#head-4ac98208bf2f5a13b9cd997c91e2e424f67a7e35 - instead of "cd src; make ...; cd -", use "make -C src ..." - clean the buildroot at the beginning of %install - license is "GPLv2+", no? - please remove the shebang lines from the .py files in %python_sitelib, using 'find .. -exec %{__sed} -i "1{/^#!/d}" {} \;' or similar, to make rpmlint quiet - qt4-devel doesn't provide qt-devel, so (imho) no need for a versioned BR on qt-devel Is there a reason why this review request is non-public? -- 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