On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:21:21 +0100, Joël Krähemann wrote: > > > My name is Joël Krähemann. I maintain Advanced Gtk+ Sequencer and I'd > > like to provide it in fedora. Linux is my OS of choice since 2001. > > Along the time I have used many distributions like debian, linux from > > scratch, SUSE, fedora and a few others. > > Hello! > > Here find some helpful links about the Fedora Packager and their processes: > > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process In particular, you should open a Review request for gsequencer as the next step. >From a quick view at the spec file: Source0 should be a full URL '-n gsequencer' is a noop, just drop it for readability. Similarly, %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} → %setup -q or oven just %autosetup. In %files: %{_libdir}/gsequencer/* → %{_libdir}/gsequencer (you need to "own" the directory too). Similarly in %{_datadir}, if you run rpmlint I'm pretty sure it'll complain about unowned directories. In general, it's better to put each Requires/BuildRequires item on it's own line. Diffs looks better and it's easier to spot mistakes. No dots at the end of Summary. Some of the explicit dependencies, e.g. Requires: libags, are most likely uneeded — rpm generates dependencies on libraries automatically. Also, I'm not sure you need so many subpackages: it's not Debian where every teeny-tiny library needs a separate subpackage. In particular, you can at least merge all the -devel subpackages into one. But the package looks nice in general. Should not be an issue to get it accepted. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
