[Bug 475098] Review Request: python-Traits - Explicitly typed attributes for Python

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Dec 13 21:49:54 UTC 2008


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475098


Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(rakesh.pandit at gma
                   |                            |il.com)




--- Comment #2 from Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com>  2008-12-13 16:49:53 EDT ---
* python define correct
* Name/Summary/Group/URL all correct
* Buildroot def is fine
* Builds Ok in mock
* License is wrong, there are multiple licenses in this package, due to various
image files.  BSD 3-clause, Eclipse Public License, LGPL, GPLv2
  Many files in enthought/traits/protocols/ have no license headers, and are in
fact from a different project, PyProtocols
  Many files in enthought/traits/tests/ have no license headers
  enthought/traits/ui/editors_gen.py is licensed under GPLv2(thus +)
  MANY things in examples/ have no license information
  Most things in integrationtests/ have no license information
* buildroot is sane
* %prep,%build,%files,%clean all seem fine
* %files OK
* changelog OK

* rpmlint output:
python-Traits.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/enthought/traits/ctraits.so 0775
python-Traits.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/enthought/traits/protocols/_speedups.so 0775

** SUMMARY **
This needs a close examination of the licenses of the files and a correct
License field.
Permissions need to be fixed.

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list