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=443238 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-18 14:23:13 EDT --- For 0.3-1: * Summary - I think the current Summary is not good sentence to explain this package shortly... * License - The codes used in cave9_src-0.3.tgz are actually under GPLv3+ (although COPYING.txt shows LGPLv3...) - The data files in cave9_data-4.tgz are licensed under CC-BY, CC-BY-SA. So the License tag must be "GPLv3+ and CC-BY and CC-BY-SA". * BuildRequires - This srpm uses desktop-file-install so "BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils" is missing. * sourceURL - Source0,1 must be written with full URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL * Macros - Use macros for standard directories. For example /usr/bin must be %{_bindir} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros * Timestamps - When using "install" or "cp" commands, add "-p" option to keep timestamps on installed files: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps * Documents - data/README.txt in cave9_data-4.tgz contains the needed license information of data tarball so this file must be added to %doc. ! Question - Is it possible to create a seperate srpm for hud.ttf font? (do you know where hud.ttf is originally distributed?) Currently Fedora strongly suggests not to package bundled fonts: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
