[Bug 613766] New: Review Request: python-xlwt - Library to generate files compatible with Microsoft Excel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: python-xlwt - Library to generate files compatible with Microsoft Excel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613766
Summary: Review Request: python-xlwt - Library to generate files compatible with Microsoft Excel Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jspaleta@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jspaleta/python-xlwt/python-xlwt.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jspaleta/python-xlwt/python-xlwt-0.7.2-1.fc...
Description: <description here> A Library to create spreadsheet files compatible with MS Excel 97/2000/XP/2003 XLS files.
This is a python module required by helper tools included in matplotlib's mpl_toolkit collection.
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=613766
Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |athmanem@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com 2010-07-12 15:38:42 EDT --- Build: [OK]
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-xlwt-0.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm python-xlwt.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint python-xlwt.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint python-xlwt-0.7.2-1.fc13.noarch.rpm python-xlwt.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US python-xlwt.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-xlwt-0.7.2/licences.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Notes:
- Tip to correct file-not-utf8 warning: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8
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=613766
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |volker27@gmx.at
--- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at 2010-07-13 05:26:39 EDT --- Are you aware of xlutils?
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xlutils
Fedora could probably ship xlutils instead of separate xlrd and xlwt.
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=613766
--- Comment #3 from Jef Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com 2010-07-13 12:37:42 EDT --- Uhm...instead of?
xlutils requires xlrd and xlrd as prerequisites. Just because xlutils upstream bundles these other projects into its distribution as well as errorhandler, if the system doesn't provide them.. that doesn't mean its correct to package it that way.
Project policy would actually suggest that because they are separate codebases it is preferred to keep them as a separate modules. The correct way to provide support for xlutils is to package xlrd and xlwt first then have xlutil depend on those packages.
Now this happens all the time with python stuff unknowningly. But I'm not inclined to deliberately go against policy here..especially since I'm doing this package specifically to meet the matplotlib dependency as narrowly as possible.
If you want to get python-xlutils packaged, and your already a sponsored contributor, then I'll work with you as your reviewer to get python-xlrd and python-errorhandler packaged as prereqs and sign on as co-maintainer.
-jef
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=613766
--- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at 2010-07-13 12:55:18 EDT --- No, that's fine.
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=613766
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |guillaume.lemaitre@gmail.co | |m
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-25 04:42:07 EDT --- *** Bug 626896 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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=613766
--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-12-01 20:37:16 EST --- So what's up with this ticket? It still has the file-not-utf8 complaint, so Athmane's comments don't seem to have had any effect. Jef, do you still wish to submit this package?
Additional comments:
The license is wrong; this is the old, bad 4-clause "BSD with advertising" license.
There's a tests directory; is it not possible to run those tests in a %check section?
There's some stuff you don't need since you're not targeting RHEL4/5 (BuildRoot, %clean, first line of %install).
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=613766
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |StalledSubmitter
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=613766
--- Comment #7 from Jef Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com 2010-12-08 15:11:37 EST --- Jason,
I'm still interested, I'll find the cycles this week to refresh and get into compliance with current best practises now that and F12 branch is no longer needed.
-jef
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=613766
Jens Kuehnel bugzilla-redhat@jens.kuehnel.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bugzilla-redhat@jens.kuehne | |l.org
--- Comment #8 from Jens Kuehnel bugzilla-redhat@jens.kuehnel.org 2011-05-09 12:20:45 EDT --- Hi Jef,
could you make the SRPMS and SPEC file available again?
Thanks CU Jens
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=613766
--- Comment #9 from Jens Kuehnel bugzilla-redhat@jens.kuehnel.org 2011-05-09 12:21:43 EDT --- Sorry, I hate the proxy here. Please ignore Comment #8.
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=613766
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mrunge@matthias-runge.de
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-24 14:22:28 EDT --- Any progress here? I'd close this request, if there's no answer during the next month.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla