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=456190 --- Comment #21 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-20 10:18:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > ok, i've fixed most of the problems Andrea pointed out in the last message, > rpmlint now shows only 2 warnings which I think I have to keep, and I still > dont see whats wrong with the release tag so far, I welcome any comments. * Dosemu 1.4.0 (1.4.0 is the version you declared) has already been released. So the one you are packaging is a post-release snapshot version and it must follow this guideline: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages Therefore 1868svn in the release tag is not acceptable. Release Tag for Post-Release Snapshot Packages is %{X}.%{alphatag}. In this syntax, %{X} is the release number increment and %{alphatag} is the checkout string. * You are still not updating the changelog after each release. This is wrong. I already told you. In this way we cannot read the history of the package. * desktop-file-install \ --vendor=fedora \ --dir=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications \ %{SOURCE2} You must not use a vendor. Please read: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor * Categories=System;Emulator; The Categories in the desktop file should be changed to "Game;Emulator;". This is what other emulators use. * Source: %{name}-%{version}.tgz Source1: %{name}-freedos-bin.tgz Source is missing full URL (which is OK because this is a snapshot package) but you are not following the guidelines on how to create the snapshot. Full URL for Source1 is missing. More info about both issues here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL * BuildRequires: binutils This is not required. This dependency is already pulled in by default. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 * BuildRequires: bison flex For constituency with other BR's, please split the above in two lines. * You are still not following the guidelines about licensing. There are parts that are not covered by the GPL. You must identify those parts and understand under what licences they are. After that you must update the License tag accordingly. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios * I cannot build the rpm ATM, but it seems to me that the following problems where not addressed: - RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not used. - Text files are not UTF-8. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review