Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706705
Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(hdegoede@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com 2011-06-01 03:46:10 EDT --- Hi,
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
=========== -package does not meet naming guidelines, python modules should be called python-name rather then name-python, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28p...
Error 503 Service Unavailable
Works for me, I think you hit a temporary glitch.
So the package (and the specfile) should be named python-libmtag, I realize this contradicts what upstream does, but Fedora names all python modules this way for consistency
Are you sure? There are *a lot* of packages this way:
zinnia-python xapian-bindings-python vtk-python vips-python vigra-python util-vserver-python thunarx-pythonx telepathy-farsight-python stfl-python spice-gtk-python
I could go on.
These are packages where the python bindings are build from the same sources tarbal as the main package, so they follow the usual <main-packagename>-<sub-package-name> convention, however these are the exception if you do: yum list 'python-*' you will find many many more named that wau.
If I go to the cached page I even see these as examples:
- gstreamer-python
- gnome-python2
- rpm-python
-There is no clear license info available in the upstream source tarbal, please ask upstream (I think that may mean asking yourself :) to add a LICENSE file and proper copyright headers to the source files.
Copy LGPL v2.1? Ok.
Yes include a copy of the LGPL v2.1 and add a standard GPL copyright header to the single C file please.