Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy-0.9.4-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: ATpy is a high-level Python package providing a way to manipulate tables of astronomical data in a uniform way. It provides built-in support for NumPy recarrays and common astronomical file/database formats (FITS, VO, HDF5, and ASCII tables) with a very simple API.
Hi, it seems that the license information in the SPEC file is not correct any more. Beside of that, I would strongly suggest you to be a little bit more precise in the %files section. Who knows what they will ship in that tarball tomorrow? Beside of that the package seems to be ready for a review.
Hi, the license in the SPEC comes from the tarball. I know the license in git is MIT, but the tarball is not a git checkout. As soon as upstream make a new release, I will update the licensing information. Now the %files section is more verbose. Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy-0.9.4-2.fc14.src.rpm
With python3 support Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy-0.9.4-3.fc14.src.rpm
I see. And you chose GPL+ because of [1], right?: "A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include." This should be right. However, the comment in the spec file might be a bit misleading then. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
(In reply to comment #4) > I see. And you chose GPL+ because of [1], right?: Yes > > This should be right. However, the comment in the spec file might be a bit > misleading then. > I agree with that. I can change the comment to "Next release will be under MIT license"
New upstream release, under MIT license Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy-0.9.5-1.fc16.src.rpm
This is the official review: ----- [+] = ok [o] = does not apply [-] = needs work ----- [+] rpmlint is quiet enough (false positive): rpmlint SPECS/ATpy.spec SRPMS/ATpy-0.9.5-1.fc14.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/ATpy-0.9.5-1.fc14.noarch.rpm ATpy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recarrays -> rec arrays, rec-arrays, recalibrate ATpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recarrays -> rec arrays, rec-arrays, recalibrate 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [+] The package is named according to the guidelines [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] The package follows the Packaging Guidelines [+] The license is an approved licence (MIT) [+] The License field matches the actual licence [+] License file from source file is included in %doc [+] The spec file is written in American English [+] The spec file is legible [+] Packaged sources match with upstream sources (md5) md5sum ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.packaged ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.upstream 9e030de0f6ed9f59aed3f03010af4012 ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.packaged 9e030de0f6ed9f59aed3f03010af4012 ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.upstream [+] Package build at least on one primary architecture [+] ExecludeArch is not known to be needed. [+] All build dependencies are listed in the BuildRequires section [o] No locales for the package [o] Package does not store shared libraries [+] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [o] Package is not relocatable [+] Package owns all directories it installs. [+] No files are listed more than once in the %files section [+] File permissions are set properly (%defattr(...) is used) [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Package contains code and documentation only, no content [+] No large documentation files [+] %doc files do not affect runtime [o] No header files included [o] No static libraries included [o] library files ending with .so included in devel subpackage [o] no -devel subpackage [+] No libtool .la archives included [o] No GUI application, no need for a .desktop file [+] Package does not own files or directories that are owned by other packages [+] All filenames are valid UTF-8 python specific items: [+] Python eggs are be built from source. [+] Python eggs do not download any dependencies during the build process. [o] Not building a compat package. [o] Not building multiple versions (except python3 version). SHOULD items: [o] Source package does already include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream [o] No other Non-English languages supported [+] The package builds in mock [o] No koji scratch build because of conditional build macros [o] No "runable" program packaged to test [+] No "exotic" scriptlets used [o] Pyhton3 subpackage does not need to require the base package [o] no pkgconfig(.pc) files included [o] No file dependencies [o] No binaries/scripts -> no man pages needed ----- No further comments, everything seems to be fine. ----- PACKAGE APPROVED -----
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ATpy Short Description: Astronomical Tables in Python Owners: sergiopr Branches: f13 f14 f15 el6 el5 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).