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=612023 --- Comment #6 from Chen Lei <supercyp...@gmail.com> 2010-07-12 23:18:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Your package looks almost fine to me. Just a couple of minor remarks: > > - Add file debian/copyright as %doc. Even if "public domain" isn't a real > license, the corresponding copyright information should be added to the binary > package. > > - The tarball contains a pkgconfig file in folder debian/. It's probably a > good > idea to add it to the package. It must be slightly adapted, though. > > - I suggest to replace the second sentence of the devel %description with: > This package contains library and header files for developing applications > that > use %{name}. All fixed except license file which is not needed for this package. >From licensing guideline: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338197/1/tinycdb-0.77-2.fc13.src.rpm -- 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
