[Bug 185498] Review Request: gjots2

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: gjots2


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185498





------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com  2006-03-17 12:27 EST -------
>> E: gjots2 no-binary
>> E: gjots2 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
>> 
>> does it apply on python? 

> Yes. Usually these would go under %{python_sitelib}, which rpmlint wouldn't
> complain about.

Alternately, they could go into %{_datadir}/%{name}.

The usual criteria is whether the files are going to be used as a module within
other programs or are just pieces of the base application that aren't going to
be useful as library files.  (Or whatever upstream prefers :-)

python-docutils and gourmet are examples of something that installs to
%{python_sitelib}.  rpmlint and qa-assistant are examples of installing to
%{_datadir}/%{name}.

You might consider downloading and taking a look at the source rpms for some of
those packages for examples of how they do things.  There are several things in
your spec that need to be changed and looking at those specs will help.

(One thing that jumps out is that the package only includes .py files.  You need
to compile the files and include the .pyc files.  .pyo files need to either be
included or %ghosted as well.)

-- 
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.