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=493236 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-01 15:22:31 EDT --- Is this your first package for Fedora? Have you read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join? Your package does not build for me on my x86_64 machine. You really should not use BuildArch unless you're specifying "BuildArch: noarch". If your code really does not work on anything other than i386, you want "ExclusiveArch: i386", although in the modern world it's hard to imagine anyone writing C code that works only on i386. It is rather odd to put the license file for the program directly into the spec file. It's permissible for you to license the spec file if you want, as long as it's still sufficiently free (which yours is) but honestly it's legally questionable as to whether there's anything significant in a spec file which is eligible for copyright anyway. Really what it does is clutter the spec with a bunch of junk you have to ignore before you get to the useful part. You might consider using the dist tag to make maintaing the package across multiple Fedora versions easier. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag -- 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