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-html5lib - A python based HTML5 parser/tokenizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252108 ------- Additional Comments From oded@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-06 03:52 EST ------- Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the %{?fedora} conditional - it is required if I want to support Fedora versions older then 8 (do I?), and Fedora 9 at least seems to still support it. I would be very surprised if it would be dropped from future Fedora versions. I'll contact upstream and see if I can get them to add a license file. Regarding the rpmlint output: * I didn't understand the %doc output from rpmlint - I'm using %doc because I want to package the README and examples, I don't see how it relates to headers or static libraries. BTW - my rpmlint doesn't report that. * The uncompressed zip file is an issue with upstream - I decided not to repack upstream for obvious reasons. The new 0.11.1 version seems to fix this. I've repacked and published a new version of the SPEC and package for a new upstream version, and for Fedora 9 (which I'm currently running): SRPM: http://rpms.geek.co.il/fc9/python-html5lib-0.11.1-1.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://rpms.geek.co.il/fc9/python-html5lib.spec RPM: http://rpms.geek.co.il/fc9/python-html5lib-0.11.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm The new SPEC file work seamlessly for Fedora 8 and an update package will be available at http://rpms.geek.co.il/fc8 shortly. -- 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