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=514509
Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |opensource(a)till.name
--- Comment #4 from Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> 2009-08-02 04:54:41 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I'm unsure of the name. The upstream site calls itself
"pyhunspell" but the
tarball and the module are called hunspell. The guidelines only say "when in
doubt, use the name of the module that you type to import it in a script",
which would be "hunspell" (and to prepend "python-" if "py"
isn't in the name).
Not really sure what's correct here.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_....
Imho pyhunspell is ok here, because the project calls itself pyhunspell. But I
asked the packaging list to be sure:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-August/msg00002.html
%description could use a period.
But it is not a complete
sentence.
I note that the compiler flags all appear twice; I think setup.py
build gets
them right without having them passed, but I'm not certain of it.
They come from rpmdev-newspec -t python, maybe they are needed for EPEL.
(In reply to comment #3)
Bjorn's right about the licence; I grepped for lesser as usual
and of course
didn't find it. You can bug upstream for a copy of the license text if you
like; that's your business. I don't find it productive to say that for well
over half of the packages I see which don't bother to include license text.
I will the change the license tag in the spec before importing it. Here is a
ticket to include the license text in the tarball and handle the other issues:
http://code.google.com/p/pyhunspell/issues/detail?id=1
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.