Description: <description here>
A Library to create spreadsheet files compatible
with MS Excel 97/2000/XP/2003 XLS files.
This is a python module required by helper tools included in matplotlib's mpl_toolkit collection.
$ rpmlint python-xlwt-0.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm
python-xlwt.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint python-xlwt.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint python-xlwt-0.7.2-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
python-xlwt.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
python-xlwt.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-xlwt-0.7.2/licences.py
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
- Tip to correct file-not-utf8 warning: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8
Are you aware of xlutils?
Fedora could probably ship xlutils instead of separate xlrd and xlwt.
xlutils requires xlrd and xlrd as prerequisites. Just because xlutils upstream bundles these other projects into its distribution as well as errorhandler, if the system doesn't provide them.. that doesn't mean its correct to package it that way.
Project policy would actually suggest that because they are separate codebases it is preferred to keep them as a separate modules. The correct way to provide support for xlutils is to package xlrd and xlwt first then have xlutil depend on those packages.
Now this happens all the time with python stuff unknowningly. But I'm not inclined to deliberately go against policy here..especially since I'm doing this package specifically to meet the matplotlib dependency as narrowly as possible.
If you want to get python-xlutils packaged, and your already a sponsored contributor, then I'll work with you as your reviewer to get python-xlrd and python-errorhandler packaged as prereqs and sign on as co-maintainer.
No, that's fine.
*** Bug 626896 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
So what's up with this ticket? It still has the file-not-utf8 complaint, so Athmane's comments don't seem to have had any effect. Jef, do you still wish to submit this package?
The license is wrong; this is the old, bad 4-clause "BSD with advertising" license.
There's a tests directory; is it not possible to run those tests in a %check section?
There's some stuff you don't need since you're not targeting RHEL4/5 (BuildRoot, %clean, first line of %install).
I'm still interested, I'll find the cycles this week to refresh and get into compliance with current best practises now that and F12 branch is no longer needed.
could you make the SRPMS and SPEC file available again?
Sorry, I hate the proxy here. Please ignore Comment #8.
Any progress here? I'd close this request, if there's no answer during the next month.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 818264 ***