https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527289
Peter Oliver <mavit(a)mavit.org.uk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mavit(a)mavit.org.uk
--- Comment #1 from Peter Oliver <mavit(a)mavit.org.uk> ---
Thanks for working on this. I noticed the following:
Version: 20170926
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Upstream_has_never_ch...
says:
“When upstream has never chosen a version, you MUST use `Version: 0`”
License: ASL 2.0
The files packaged into `/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/third_party/ucd` are
under the Unicode licence.
Source0: nototools-0c99dff.tar.gz
Shouldn’t this be
`https://github.com/googlei18n/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{commit0}.tar.gz`,
or similar?
Description is empty for python2-nototools.
There’s missing Requires and BuildRequires of `python2dist(fonttools)`.
Are we sure it’s okay to put files in
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/third_party?
File third_party/ucd/README.third_party describes where this content comes
from. I think we should probably add these as separate sources and pull them
down ourselves.
Some scripts get installed into both /usr/bin and
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nototools, but the copies in
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nototools are not executable and have an
incorrect #! line.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component