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: pyodbc - Python DB API 2.0 Module for ODBC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-02 14:57 EST ------- (In reply to comment #0) > Spec URL: http://www.bludgeon.org/~rayvd/rpms/pyodbc/pyodbc.spec > SRPM URL: http://www.bludgeon.org/~rayvd/rpms/pyodbc/pyodbc-2.0.58-1.src.rpm Looks OK for first look. rpmlint is clean, spec file is simple. But does not build in mock: DEBUG: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.46918: line 27: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory I think python-devel or something similar is missing from BuildRequires. Please fix this. > Questions: > - Should I included text of the MIT license even though source package doesn't > include it? I think no. You should ask developers to add license into package, but do not include other license files into rpm. - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. -- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
