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=225978 --- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-03-24 13:19:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > > > - dist tag is present. > > > MUST: Add this. > > > > It's not listed in Packaging/Guidelines as a must, so I don't think it's > > really needed. > > Notting is right, it's a SHOULD, but no MUST. True; it isn't even in the packaging or the review guidelines; it's buried in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag, also it appears in the spec file example. My apologies. Still, I think it should be in, since when you upgrade from an older distribution the old distro's rpm may not be replaced if its EVR is otherwise the same as in the older distro release. > > > X BuildRequires are proper. > > > * Please clean the conflicts, requires and buildrequires. ideally they > > > should be given one per line in alphabetical order > > > > Also seems a bit nitpicky, but sure. > > Requiring a line for each conflicts, requires and buildrequires seems a waste > of lines. Using space or colon as separator seems much more better to me. It's okay, as long as the separators are the same throughout the spec file. Now there's both commas and spaces. (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > - Is it really necessary to have the documentation in the devel package too? > > I'd prune these. > > There's no dependnecies between the subpackages, and given the recent > discussions on where license files need to be, it seems more prudent to put > them in both. Okay, I guess this is an exception to the rule that devel packages require %{name} = %{version}-%{release} and thus the doc files should be replicated in the devel package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review