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=509158 --- Comment #3 from Björn Persson <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-02 12:54:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Thanks for your comments, Jochen. I have fixed some of your points but I have questions on some others: > - Because the package should be fedora specific, it should be named as > fedora-gnat-... Fixed (but it looks like I can't update the title of this review request). > - Source tag contains not a fully qualified URI. Submitter should create > a project on fedorahosted.org Done. > - Could not check packaged tar ball agains upstream. > - Package doesn#t contains a URL tag Tarballs will be at https://fedorahosted.org/released/fedora-gnat-project-common/. > - License tag say 'Copyright only' this is not a valid OSS license "Copyright only" is listed under Good Licenses at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main. Please explain why you think it isn't valid. These files are so small that I don't care much about the license. I'd place them in the public domain, but as I understand it I can't do that under Swedish copyright law, so I figured I'd require copyright attribution only and otherwise let anyone do anything with them. > - Package contains not a verbatin copy of the license text common.gpr contains the complete license text: -- Copyright 2009 B. Persson, Bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- No restrictions are placed on this code. > - Pleace use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc in the %files stanza Fixed. > - you should use a version like 0.1 instead of 1, because I'm assume > your are the upstream and this is the first release of the software Yes, I am upstream and this is the first release, but I don't understand what's wrong with the version number. Version 1 means it's the first version, which is what it is. The package is too small to have major and minor version numbers, so if I need to change something I'll release version 2. What's the problem? > - Package has no proper BuildRoot definition Could you please explain why a buildroot definition is still needed? I'm not planning to package this for anything older than Fedora 10, so any buildroot I define will be ignored and %_topdir/BUILDROOT will be used instead. Before I upload a new package I want to understand why you think the version number is wrong. -- 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