[Bug 252108] Review Request: python-html5lib - A python based HTML5 parser/tokenizer

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=252108

--- Comment #41 from Oded Arbel <oded at geek.co.il> 2011-07-12 18:21:49 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> This is unusual> 
> Provides: %{modulename} = %{version}
> It bloats the metadata.  Is it necessary?  consider removing

I think its useful because people may want to depend on "html5lib" instead of
"python-html5lib", but I see that no one else is doing this - so I removed it.

> in %install stage, rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is redundant.  

OK.

> Add Build Requires on python-devel and RPM would pick up the requires
> automatically.  You can remove the explicit requires.

I don't agree - html5lib is a pure python implementation and does not require
python-devel to build or run, so there's no need to force the user to install
it. python-setuptools on the other hand is required for building the package
but requiring python-devel will not cause it to be installed.

As for the explicit run-time requirement on python, RPM indeed picks that up
automatically, so I removed this explicit requirement.

> %files can be reduced to
> 
> %doc examples README
> %{python_sitelib}/%{modulename}

I need to add %{python_sitelib}/%{modulename}-*.egg-info otherwise it complains
that these files are not installed but not packaged. I'm not an expert on
Python and I'm not sure what the egg-info files are, but I have a feeling they
are important. Regarding the other lines, I'm pretty sure I had a good reason
to do it but I can't figure it out now so I cleaned it up.

> Ideally,  upstream should update README to explicitly mention the license and
> you must contact upstream to ask them to include a copy of the license.

I've asked on the project's Google group a couple of times to include a license
file, but with very little response. I've now opened an issue on that in their
issue tracker (http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/issues/detail?id=188) but I
doubt it will get any better response. If this is requirement is a must and the
package cannot get into Fedora without fulfilling it, then we will just have to
wait. If upstream doesn't get back on that issue within a week or so, I'll open
up a personal email campaign ;-)

Updated RPM files are in the links above, updated SPEC file will be attached
shortly.

-- 
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.