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=602587 Paul Howarth <p...@city-fan.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |p...@city-fan.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |p...@city-fan.org Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth <p...@city-fan.org> 2010-06-10 06:03:22 EDT --- A few quick comments on the spec to start with: The README has the usual license statement: "All rights reserved. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself." That makes the license "GPL+ or Artistic", not "Artistic 2.0". You can drop the boilerplate comments from the spec template, and should take notice of them too: this is a noarch package so including `OPTIMIZE="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"' is redundant, as is the `find' of empty `.bs' files. Use an upstream release location for Source0, not a copy from another downstream distribution's ftp server. I suggest one of these: http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/IPC/IPC-Signal-%{version}.tar.gz http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/IPC/ROSCH/IPC-Signal-%{version}.tar.gz http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/R/RO/ROSCH/IPC-Signal-%{version}.tar.gz I would be more specific with the %files list; rather than: %{perl_vendorlib}/* %{_mandir}/man3/*.3* I would have: %{perl_vendorlib}/IPC/ %{_mandir}/man3/IPC::Signal.3pm* This form make it easier to spot significant changes in the package's contents in any future versions but it's not a blocker - your original format is still acceptable if that's what you prefer. Include Changes and README in %doc. The latter is particularly important as it contains the terms under which the package is licensed. I agree with you about the rpmlint complaint. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
