[Bug 484808] Review Request: python-linux-procfs - parser classes for information found in /proc

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 10 14:13:57 UTC 2009


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=484808





--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com>  2009-02-10 09:13:56 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> 1) Because procfs also exists in other OSes, such as Solaris, where this idea,
> AFAIK, came from. And the files parsed have very much Linux specific keys and
> formats, so having "linux" in the name is needed.
> 
That is ok then.

> 2) All the .py files state that the files are under GPLv2, as does the specfile
> License tag. Is it really a requirement that even with this clearly stated we
> need a copy of the license in a LICENSE named file?
> 
> If that is the case, sure, I can do it, and will as well as to submit a patch
> for rpmlint to warn about that :-)

SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. 

I will say that either you can add license text as header in all .py files or
include separate license text file.
see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

you can then include license file as %doc


3) F6 is already EOL and since F7 we have python >= 2.5 so you can change 

%if "%{python_ver}" >= "2.5"
%{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info
%endif
to
%{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info
only

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.




More information about the package-review mailing list