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=473583 --- Comment #14 from steve <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-19 11:02:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > Bad: > > 1. The version in the changelog, should be 3.0-4, not 3.0.4. Done. Also, updated version to 3.0-5 due to the changes below. > 2. The sums don't match to upstream: > Upstream SHA1: aeb7887cb4935756cf77deb1ea86973dff0e32fb > Your tarball's SHA1: fb2476bf83cbd14f2030c7c66b7485e49e36671c Fixed. (huh, don't quite remember why there was a difference in the first place) > 3. There is a static lib in the -devel package. Unless we have a good reason, > we don't package static libs: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries Done. Although note that the dynamic lib is included in the wordnet package (rather than the -devel) because the wordnet binaries create a dependency on it. > 4. Devel packages should require the main package (Requires: %{name} = > %{version}-%{release}) > Done. > I'd also prefer if you didn't wildcard everything so broadly in %files. That > approach leads to extra files getting packaged upon updates without noticing > it. Done. The binaries are no longer selected with a wildcard, and all the other files are grouped into reasonably generic wildcards. > Clean up the bad items, and I'll give this another pass. The newer spec and src rpm are at: http://www.lonetwin.net/wordnet.spec http://lonetwin.net/wordnet-3.0-5.fc10.src.rpm Thanks for your time. cheers, - steve -- 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