https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527289
Peter Oliver <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from Peter Oliver <[email protected]> --- Thanks for working on this. I noticed the following: > Version: 20170926 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Upstream_has_never_chosen_a_version says: “When upstream has never chosen a version, you MUST use `Version: 0`” > License: ASL 2.0 The files packaged into `/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/third_party/ucd` are under the Unicode licence. > Source0: nototools-0c99dff.tar.gz Shouldn’t this be `https://github.com/googlei18n/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{commit0}.tar.gz`, or similar? Description is empty for python2-nototools. There’s missing Requires and BuildRequires of `python2dist(fonttools)`. Are we sure it’s okay to put files in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/third_party? File third_party/ucd/README.third_party describes where this content comes from. I think we should probably add these as separate sources and pull them down ourselves. Some scripts get installed into both /usr/bin and /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nototools, but the copies in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nototools are not executable and have an incorrect #! line. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
