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 www.python.org Web site generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-24 13:52 EST ------- Honestly I'd actually copy the relevant text of that message into a file that you include as %doc, and also include the URL of the original along with a bit of explanation. Someone with an installed package who wants to check the license won't have access to the specfile. I also don't think including a just URL is sufficient, especially given how difficult sourceforge can be to reach sometimes. I personally would always use the dist tag because of the amount of work it saves when maintaining identical packages across multiple distribution releases. But it's up to you. I note that the final package has no requirement on Python. I believe this is a blocker. Review: * source files match upstream: 925d359f7db48c44ed0bc3044cebd3f0 ht2html-2.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X dist tag is present (not a blocker but you probably want to use it) * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. X license is open source-compatible. Statement of license should be included as %doc in the package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * noarch package; no debuginfo. * rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires: missing python requirement. ht2html = 2.0-2 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/env * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
