http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=440
--- Comment #5 from Dave Straub <[email protected]> 2009-03-16 20:08:23 --- (In reply to comment #4) > Some comments: > > * You should specify a version to checkout from upstream VCS. Otherwise the > reviewer cannot be sure to compare/recreate the same exact version you used. > Place this details above the Source tag. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control The revision number was specified as outlined here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages I added the svn comment above the Source tag rather than a wget at the top. > * Some BR are not required: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2 They were specified more to remind myself I need them when using a live CD to test a clean build. I removed them if they are troublesome to include. > * Do not strip binaries! Otherwise the debuginfo package is useless: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo I forgot to install redhat-rpm-config at first, so rpmlint was angry at the unstripped files. This is fixed. > * Avoid using dos2unix. Use sed instead: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rpmlint_Errors Done. > * I see that you use the %{__xxx} macro style. Even though this is not a bug > and it is not required that you change it, I suggest you not to use this style > because it is not very readable. I cannot think of a good reason to use it > instead of just using "xxx". I removed the macros. > * The icon cache scriptlets are not the same used by the Fedora guidelines: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache I didn't know they were required to be the same; I'll use their version now. > I haven't checked every requirements but the spec file is quite good as a > first > release from a rookie :) > > Unluckily I'm not a sponsor and therefore I cannot sponsor you. I suggest you > to do "informal" reviews of other packages to show your understanding of > Fedora > guidelines to potential sponsors. > Thanks for the corrections. Let me know if you notice anything else. I will have a look around other review requests. Updated Spec: http://dave.is1337.net/sources/vbam.spec Updated SRPM: http://dave.is1337.net/sources/vbam-1.8.0-0.2.20090316svn856.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
