Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ht2html - The
www.python.org Web site generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889
------- Additional Comments From ifoox(a)redhat.com 2006-06-23 16:39 EST -------
Hi Jason, thanks for your comments. I've updated a new spec file and SRPM here:
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html.spec
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html-2.0-1jpp_2fc.src.rpm
Please just use a plain integer for the release number.
This
package is taken from
jpackage.org, and I'd like to keep the versioning
consistent with theirs. Is the non-numeric release a big problem here?
I suggest not compressing ht2html; it saves all of eleven bytes
makes
maintanence incrementally nore difficult.
Done.
Source0: isn't a URL, and in addition that source file isn't
available from
upstream. (They only supply a .gz file.) Suggest using
http://dl.sf.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Done.
Please don't use Vendor or Distribution.
Done.
I'm not sure why you have BR: python-devel; this package just
copies files into
place.
You're right, done.
I can find no information indicating that this software is in the public domain.
Can you provide a reference?
There seems to be no mention of licensing in the software itself, but I found
mention of in the sourceforge net. However, rpmlint tells me that both 'Python
License' and '' are invalid. Is there a cannonical way to call this license?
RPM will compile all of the .py files; you will need to %ghost the
.pyo files
which are generated.
I've %ghosted the .pyo files, and listed *.py and *.pyc files as seperate
entries in the %files section.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.