Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-1.src.rpm Description: A framework for performing client-side tests of web applications, based on PyUnit.
I just saw this ticket, which nobody has looked at because you set the fedora-review flag when you submitted it so it never appeared in the review queue. If you still want to submit this package, please clear the fedora-review tag and bring the package up to today's packaging guidelines. And you should probably make the package noarch as well, because I can't see any reason for it to be arch-specific. webunit.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long A framework for performing client-side tests of web applications, based on PyUnit. webunit.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL webunit.x86_64: E: no-binary webunit.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/httpsession.py 0644 webunit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL webunit-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-2.fc11.src.rpm
Some comment after a quick look at your spec file. - Don't mix '$RPM_BUILD_ROOT' and '%{buildroot}' http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS - README is missing in %doc - Is there any note about the license in the source?
Mike, do you still want to proceed with this review request?
This project's license is documented as LGPL at http://sourceforge.net/projects/webunit/develop/. Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-3.fc11.src.rpm
- Do you really need 'python_sitearch'? I guess that this is a left-over from the template. - Can you please preserve the timestamps in the install section? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps The biggest issue is still the missing license statement.
Upstream closed the bug [1] about the license as 'wont fix'. [1] https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=browse&group_id=20323&atid=120323
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-4.fc12.src.rpm - Remove python_sitearch. - Preserve timestaps when using install.
I can't see any license statement anywhere? How do you derive that its LGPLv2 also there some rpmlint errors that can definitely be fixed: webunit.spec:44: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot} webunit.src:44: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot} webunit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/httpsession.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-5.fc12.src.rpm - Fix macro in changelog - Chmod httpsession.py 755 As stated in comment #5, the license is noted at the project's SourceForge site.
Copy and paste messages you sent to and from upstream about the license as comments into the .spec file. Then the licensing is clear where it comes from. Steve.
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-6.fc12.src.rpm
To be honest: Is it worth to get a package into fedora, which is not actively maintained? (Tarball 8 years old, last commit in svn 4 years old) Or do you want to become the new maintainer and further improve/develop this? It looks like this could work on python3 (just looked at the source, untested), maybe you could do a subpackage as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
Ping, I'll close this soon, when no response by the reporter...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews#Submitter_not_responding