[Bug 449151] Review Request: pyodbc - Python DB API 2.0 Module for ODBC

[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: pyodbc - Python DB API 2.0 Module for ODBC


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449151


ondrejj at salstar.sk changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |ondrejj at salstar.sk
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From ondrejj at salstar.sk  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.