https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907238
--- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3)
Description: OpenEXR is a project of the [Academy Software Foundation](https://www.aswf.io). The format and library were originally developed by Industrial Light & Magic and first released in 2003. Weta Digital, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Sony Pictures Imageworks, Pixar Animation Studios, DreamWorks, and other studios, companies, and individuals have made contributions to the code base.
Description + Summary don't actually say what this package and the format are *for* (images, video, something else?). Not everybody knows what "EXR" means. Also, I think the blurb about authors is not interesting for users.
Yeah, I copied that and a lot more from the README. I may borrow from the current OpenEXR package.
%{_bindir}/*
Maybe '%{_bindir}/exr*' ? This will make it less likely to something unintended to slip in on upgrades.
rpmlint: openexr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US containes -> contained, contains, containers
Since I copied it straight from their readme I guess I should let them know :)
# Is it OK to dump the libraries in site-packages?
It means that the modules 'iex' and 'imath' will be importable in the global namespace. It's certainly allowed in general. I think the name is a bit generic in this case, but it's not something we have influence over.
Most dedicated python packages that I maintain put them in a named subdirectory but yeah, I looked in my system and there's lots of packages that dump them right in site-packages.
- license is acceptable for Fedora (BSD 3 clause)
- license is specified correctly
- builds and installs OK
- BR and Requires look correct
- Provides and Obsoletes look correct took
Package is APPROVED.
Thanks!