Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908114

--- Comment #8 from Sandro Mani <manisan...@gmail.com> ---
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/python-pillow.spec
SRPM URL: python-pillow-1.7.8-1.20130210gite09ff61.fc19.src.rpm

Changes:
- Conform to Python packaging guidelines
- Changed license to MIT, had upstream include a COPYING file
- Added URL for source0.
  Some comments on this: The github guideline suggests using
    [...]/archive/$commit/$name-$version-$shortcommit.tar.gz
  However, the name of the file which gets downloaded by visiting that url is
actually %{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz
  In my opinion it is better to use
    [...]/tarball/$commit/$name-$version-$ahead-g$shortcommit.tar.gz
  (note: "tarball" instead of "archive") for the following reasons:
  * The filename is more readable
  * This is also the filename format when one downloads pillow from
http://python-imaging.github.com/Pillow/
  Currently I would not use the pypi source + git patch, since the patch would
be very large (all the python3 compatibility changes for one)
- Fixed versioning, used recommended snapshot naming
- Fixed obsoletes/provides
- check: The option is to run the check either in the buildroot or in the build
folder. The issue with running the check in the build folder is to reliably
determine the name of the build folder. For instance, for python2 x86_64, the
module is built under $srcfolder/build/lib.linux-$arch-$pyver, with arch x86_64
or i686. I fear that the $arch part may be somewhat fragile.
- Concerning the no-strict-aliasing option, it would be nice to know why the
flag was added last November.
- Fixed permissions
- Cosmetic issues fixed
- rpmlint issues fixed

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zLNjC6q4Fz&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

Reply via email to