Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446989 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-20 14:49:37 EDT --- Sorry for not getting back to this earlier; there are so many packages to look at. You linked to the wrong srpm above; I've found the right one. I guess when following those packaging guidelines you didn't look at the whole set of examples. Unless you have some specific reason for using the most verbose and complicated means of constructing your %files list, why not just use the simple one? I mean, you entire %files list could be the following: %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc README LICENSE NAME.txt NEWS.txt %{python_sitelib}/* rpmlint says: python-epsilon.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 16) I don't think this is a particularly big issue; fix it if you like. Not that it matters much, but you can do without dos2unix by simply calling sed: sed -i 's/\r//' NAME.txt Where did the %{?!python:%define python python} along with all of the %{python} macro usage come from? I'm having a tough time understanding why you would want that. I guess it would be useful if we had multiple python versions in the distro at once and you want to build python3-epsilon, except that everyone's been adamant that will not happen. Given that, it just seems like noise. I note that several of the source files carry no licensing information. Upstream should be prodded to put that information on every source file. I note that the tarball downloaded from the Source0: URL does not match what you have in this package. Any reason why there's a difference? Only the last issue is an absolute blocker, but the specfile cleanliness stuff (needlessly complex %files list, pointless %{python} macro) are things that someone else might approve, but because I'm a fan of using the minimum amount of spec file to do the job, I won't personally accept them. There's a really nice python package template in /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-python.spec which, once it's adapted, makes a nice minimal python spec file, and that's the kind of spec file that I personally like to see. So I'm going to leave this review for someone else to look at. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review