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 --- Comment #3 from steve <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-30 08:23:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > A few points here: > > 1. Go through the spec and use macros consistently. Specifically, %{name}, > %{version}. Done. > 2. Look at the license tag. Re-read: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL > (hint: look at the source code) > Done. Added the correct license tag (GPLv2+) to the spec file. > 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. > Done. > 4. Instead of wildcarding so aggressively for a single binary and manpage, why > not be more specific? > Done. I've also checked both the spec file and rpm with rpmlint and received no errors. > I'll do a more complete review when I see a new SRPM/SPEC. Thanks for your time. The latest spec and rpm are at: http://lonetwin.net/wmfire.spec http://lonetwin.net/wmfire-1.2.3-2.fc10.src.rpm 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