Spec URL: http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/pygtkhelpers/0.4.2-1/pygtkhelpers.spec SRPM URL: http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/pygtkhelpers/0.4.2-1/pygtkhelpers-0.4.2-1.f15.src.rpm Description: PyGTKHelpers is a library to assist the building of PyGTK applications. It is intentionally designed to be non-frameworky, and blend well with your particular style of PyGTK development. $ rpmlint pygtkhelpers-0.4.2-1.f15.src.rpm pygtkhelpers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frameworky -> framework, frameworks, framework y 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint pygtkhelpers-0.4.2-1.fc14.i686.rpm pygtkhelpers.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frameworky -> framework, frameworks, framework y pygtkhelpers.i686: E: no-binary 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2988564
Hi, I tried updating to the latest version of pida, but it depends on pygtkhelpers in order to run. Can you please get this package through soon, so that I can push it in.
(In reply to comment #1) > Hi, > I tried updating to the latest version of pida, but it depends on > pygtkhelpers in order to run. Can you please get this package through soon, so > that I can push it in. How about reviewing it then? ;) The spec looks fine on a brief view, except the "Requires: python(abi) = 2.7". That's added automatically and, when python gets an update to an other version than 2.7, this won't work anymore.
Just some quick comments: - The website and the LICENSE.txt claims that the license is LGPL and not GPL. - There are examples in the source. Wouldn't it be a good idea to put those examples in a subpackage? - The '%{!?python_sitearch:...' line is not needed. - I don't think that console.py needs 755. Removing the shebang can calm rpmlint down.
All done. Please do formal review, thank you. [lzap@lzapx i686]$ rpmlint pygtkhelpers-*.rpm pygtkhelpers.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frameworky -> framework, frameworks, framework y pygtkhelpers.i686: E: no-binary pygtkhelpers-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. [lzap@lzapx SRPMS]$ rpmlint pygtkhelpers-0.4.2-2.f15.src.rpm pygtkhelpers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frameworky -> framework, frameworks, framework y 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/pygtkhelpers/0.4.2-2/
(In reply to comment #4) > [lzap@lzapx i686]$ rpmlint pygtkhelpers-*.rpm > pygtkhelpers.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frameworky -> > framework, frameworks, framework y > pygtkhelpers.i686: E: no-binary > pygtkhelpers-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. This package only installs into %{python_sitelib} and not in %{python_sitearch}, so this package can be noarch and no debuginfo package will be generated. I think the license is unclear... The website links to LGPLv3 and there is a LGPLv3 LICENSE file in it, but the header say LGPLv2+, it would be best to clarify that.
Upstream contacted for the clarification.
Any update?
Ping? python-logbook is in, this is the only blocker for latest pida now.
Though, thinking about it, if the headers say, LGPLv2+, and the website says LPGLv3, I would think you could just call it LGPLv3, include the license file, and be done with it. Block FE-LEGAL for review if you're not sure.
Ping?
Ping? I'd really like to fix PIDA. . .
(In reply to comment #11) > Ping? I'd really like to fix PIDA. . . This looks stalled. How about requesting a new review and closing this as a duplicate of the new one, Jon? (In reply to comment #0) > Spec URL: > http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/pygtkhelpers/0.4.2-1/pygtkhelpers.spec Looks ok without having a deeper look. Some comments: - R: on a hardcoded python version is bad. The R on the python(abi) is added automatically anyway, so leaving it out would be the best... - There is no BuildRoot defined, but %clean and rm -rf in %install. All is needed for builting in el5 and nothing is needed in Fedora, so you can choose what to do here.
Will do. I have a -2, so I'll modify that to a -3 and post it.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 767185 ***