https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079064
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng <cicku...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Dennis Payne from comment #5) > I don't like that summary because btbuilder does more than the Bard's Tale > Construction Set. How about "Role-playing game construction set in the style > of the Bard's Tale Construction Set"? I should improve the desrcription as > well. Hi Denis, well, it's up to you. I'm not from upstream. > I'm using desktop-file-install in the Makefile. Is that considered bad? > Should I move it to the install section of the spec? Do I need to do > desktop-file-validate since I'm using install? Oh... A new case ;) I think the current way is OK if you add this command in makefile instead of some upstream people just use install directly. > I don't understand Adrien's comments on requires. According to the > guidelines: > > RPM has very good capabilities of automatically finding dependencies for > libraries and eg. Perl modules. In short, don't reinvent the wheel, but just > let rpm do its job. There is usually no need to explicitly list > > I believe all my library uses will be detected by RPM. I don't find any questionable things on BRs. I'm concerned about: 1. Long %description. Remember 79 chars per line. 2. Remove %clean section. 3. No %changelog section. 4. %doc README CONTRIBUTIONS.TXT Where is license file? > Sorry about not using my real name on the bugzilla account. I created it a > long time ago and didn't see the point of putting in my name. Yes it's okay in the past, but not from now :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
