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=514509
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |opensource@till.name
--- Comment #4 from Till Maas opensource@till.name 2009-08-02 04:54:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
I'm unsure of the name. The upstream site calls itself "pyhunspell" but the tarball and the module are called hunspell. The guidelines only say "when in doubt, use the name of the module that you type to import it in a script", which would be "hunspell" (and to prepend "python-" if "py" isn't in the name). Not really sure what's correct here. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28p...
Imho pyhunspell is ok here, because the project calls itself pyhunspell. But I asked the packaging list to be sure: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-August/msg00002.html
%description could use a period.
But it is not a complete sentence.
I note that the compiler flags all appear twice; I think setup.py build gets them right without having them passed, but I'm not certain of it.
They come from rpmdev-newspec -t python, maybe they are needed for EPEL.
(In reply to comment #3)
Bjorn's right about the licence; I grepped for lesser as usual and of course didn't find it. You can bug upstream for a copy of the license text if you like; that's your business. I don't find it productive to say that for well over half of the packages I see which don't bother to include license text.
I will the change the license tag in the spec before importing it. Here is a ticket to include the license text in the tarball and handle the other issues: http://code.google.com/p/pyhunspell/issues/detail?id=1