[Bug 193889] Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jun 23 20:47:59 UTC 2006
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 ifoox at redhat.com 2006-06-23 16:39 EST -------
Hi Jason, thanks for your comments. I've updated a new spec file and SRPM here:
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html.spec
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html-2.0-1jpp_2fc.src.rpm
> Please just use a plain integer for the release number.
This package is taken from jpackage.org, and I'd like to keep the versioning
consistent with theirs. Is the non-numeric release a big problem here?
> I suggest not compressing ht2html; it saves all of eleven bytes makes
> maintanence incrementally nore difficult.
Done.
> Source0: isn't a URL, and in addition that source file isn't available from
> upstream. (They only supply a .gz file.) Suggest using
> http://dl.sf.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Done.
> Please don't use Vendor or Distribution.
Done.
> I'm not sure why you have BR: python-devel; this package just copies files into
> place.
You're right, done.
>
> I can find no information indicating that this software is in the public domain.
> Can you provide a reference?
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 '' are invalid. Is there a cannonical way to call this license?
> RPM will compile all of the .py files; you will need to %ghost the .pyo files
> which are generated.
I've %ghosted the .pyo files, and listed *.py and *.pyc files as seperate
entries in the %files section.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list