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 #26 from Justin Zygmont <solarflow99@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-09 08:06:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) > (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. Well, the best I could do to figure what it should be was to look at other spec files and try to guess, so lets see if this is ok now. > * 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. no, this is the first RPM so it would make no sense why I need to update the changelog at this point, all I have done is corrected the spec file to try and get it released in the first place. > * 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 ok, removed. > * Categories=System;Emulator; > > The Categories in the desktop file should be changed to "Game;Emulator;". This > is what other emulators use. I didnt want this to be a game category because its not just a game emulator, its a dos emulator, but I have changed it anyways. > * 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 You told me before forget the source URL, you just wanted to know why I was packaging a SVN release, > * 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. Thats done now. > * 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 tried, from the information I have available. > * I cannot build the rpm ATM, but it seems to me that the following problems > where not addressed: > > - RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not used. I dont know of any opt flags needed, I remember going over all this stuff, and its not because I just dont know anything, > - Text files are not UTF-8. rpmlint only reported certain files needed to be converted, I dont know that I have to convert every file to UTF now. I've uploaded the updated files to the place listed above at fedorapeople.org, I fixed everything I could find, so in case there are still small errors, its not because I didnt bother to read the guidelines, its easy to see who wrote the docs knows everything about it. -- 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