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=478744 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-18 14:29:30 EDT --- A few points here: 1. Go through the spec and use macros consistently. Specifically, %{name}, %{version}. 2. Look at the license tag. Re-read: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL (hint: look at the source code) 3. Look at the Requires that rpm finds automatically. If it finds libgtop-2.0.so.7() as a Requires, you don't need to explicitly list it as a Requires. 4. Instead of wildcarding so aggressively for a single binary and manpage, why not be more specific? I'll do a more complete review when I see a new SRPM/SPEC. -- 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