[Bug 913296] Review Request: salt-api - An API to the salt management and remote execution system

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296

Thomas Spura <tomspur at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tomspur at fedoraproject.org

--- Comment #4 from Thomas Spura <tomspur at fedoraproject.org> ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Updated .spec file at the URL provided above to reflect requested changes.

Please always bump the release, write in the changelog what you changed and
provide new links here.

(In reply to comment #3)
> The review shows a couple concerns, one is the desire for python2-devel. I'm
> not sure that's required here, since it seems that salt also doesn't require
> this library. But the
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires suggests this
> is necessary. I will do a bit of legwork here to confirm it is indeed
> required.

All python packages must require that by definition. This way it's ensured,
that /usr/bin/python and all headers are installed, in case it isn't a noarch
package. In this case a BR on python would be sufficient, but we defined in the
Guidelines to BR python?-devel nevertheless.

> Additionally, the tarball checksum doesn't match the upstream tarball.
> However, the diff above shows no differences. I'm guessing this is because
> you created your own tarball. When I build my rpms, I do a simple wget to
> the SOURCES directory to ensure I have the current upstream tarball. 

I normally do a "spectool -g $specfile" to get the sources.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oNkXmJShR1&a=cc_unsubscribe