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-beaker - WSGI middleware for sessions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445018 ------- Additional Comments From felix.schwarz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-12 16:04 EST ------- Review: MUST items - no rpmlint output for srpm - package naming ok for python module - spec file name matches package name - packaging guidelines are met - license tag in spec file is 'MIT', upstream names it 'MIT' in setup.py but actual license text included in the package is 3 clause BSD (without advertising). => I'm not quite what we should do here. At least the license tag in the spec file must be updated (3 clause BSD is acceptable for Fedora) but to be sure we should ask upstream under what license the code is placed. Furthermore, there are some file in the package which do use a form of MIT license: * beaker/converters.py uses MIT / "Modern Style with sublicense", no license text only referenced URL * beaker/crypto/pbkdf2.py uses MIT / "Old Style with legal disclaimer 3" (variant names taken from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT) What should we do with them? The most part of the code is BSD(?, see above). I think RPM does only accept a single license tag. - license text (BSD) is separate file named LICENSE, included in %doc - spec file written in English and is legible - sources match upstream (md5sum 9e474576e948d7f80ce238d31c80ade3) - package builds in mock on x86_64 for Fedora 8 - buildreqs OK - no shared libraries, static libraries, header files, pkgconfig files, or locale files - package doesn't claim to be relocatable - directory ownership OK - no duplicate files - %defattr(...) present and correct in %files section - %clean section present and correct - %install section properly cleans buildroot first - macro usage is ok - package does only contain code - runtime does not depend on docs - no GUI, therefore no .desktop file - filenames are all ascii SHOULD items: - builds in mock - package is a library but basic functional test passed - no file dependencies Paul Howarth suggest for my own python package that I use a more specific file list ("%{python_sitelib}/beaker*", ...) which seems to be a good idea for your package too: "this helps catch future changes that create extra files in the package, which you might want to document further in the changelog etc." -- 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