Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914996
--- Comment #8 from Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> --- >> Why do you now call the spec file gitstats-0.2.spec and not gitstats.spec? >> Your >> first specfile was called gitstats.spec.. > > I've actually had reviewers request that I do that in the past so they can > see the differences between the submitted files (rather than overwriting > each time). This is off-topic, but the git (cgit) is able to do this for you - you are able to post everytime the same link to spec file and the history is not lost. >> 3. Missing release number >> >>[..] > > I went back and reviewed the naming/versioning guidelines and have ended up > with names of the form gitstats-0-0.3.20130224git0843039. I reset the > version to 0 as this is effectively "pre-release software" (no formal > releases) and use the revision number to maintain the ordering as shown in > the example: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages Nice! Thanks for this fix. I missed that the 0.2 was not upstream version. The N-V-R as you are using now is OK. =============================================================================== Another problems: 1. package should own all directories it creates $ rpm -qf /usr/share/gitstats file /usr/share/gitstats is not owned by any package + %dir {_datarootdir}/%{name} probably should be added 2. Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files s/install/install -p/ Otherwise it seems to be ok to me. I'll re-run the fedora-review script and post deep info when these are fixed. Thanks for your work! Pavel -- 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=YNvDZPL6Ts&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
