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: ht2html - The Web site generator

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-23 19:35 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)

> This package is taken from, and I'd like to keep the versioning
> consistent with theirs. Is the non-numeric release a big problem here?

The guidelines are clear:

Non-Numeric Version in Release

There are two cases in which non-numeric versions occur in the Release field:

    * Pre-release packages
    * Snapshot packages

This package is neither.  We want simple integer release numbers when possible.
 Just imagine what this package would look like with a proper dist tag added:
"ht2html-2.0-1jpp_2fc.fc6.rpm".  That's just insane.

> There seems to be no mention of licensing in the software itself, but I found
> mention of  in the sourceforge net. However, rpmlint tells me that both 
> 'Python
> License' and 'Python License (CNRI Python License)' are invalid. Is there a
cannonical way to call this license?

rpmlint can be a bit confusing; in this case, the valid licenses accepted are
overridden by a Fedora-specific file /usr/share/rpmlint/config.  The string to
use is "Python Software Foundation License".  However, honestly with absolutely
no license mentioned in the source, you really do need to contact upstream and
get some sort of statement.  When you get that, include the correspondence in
the package.  (In a perfect world they'd make a new release which includes a
license statement, but this package is pretty old so I doubt that would happen.)

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to