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@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.