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=528847 --- Comment #6 from Scott Collier <boodle11@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-15 22:02:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > A few more items: > > By changing the name, you can drop the define real_name and its use in %setup. done > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > says that the License tag should be: > License: GPL+ > because no version is specified in the source. done > > I think omitting the [fg]eplot and nplaunch files is wrong. You can chmod them > 0644 and then include them in %doc. I wasn't sure how to handle those. I've added them back. They are bash scripts, so I put them in bindir with 0755. Is that OK? > > And bump the Release number, from 1.2 to 2, in case anyone happens to have the > older release somehow. done rpmlint on rpm: $ rpmlint ../RPMS/i586/NetPIPE-3.7.1-1.2.fc11.i586.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint on spec: $ rpmlint ../RPMS/i586/NetPIPE-3.7.1-1.2.fc11.i586.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Spec URL: http://boodle.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/NetPIPE.spec SRPM URL: http://boodle.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/NetPIPE-3.7.1-1.2.fc11.src.rpm Thanks again for the guidance. -Scott > > Thanks, > Matt -- 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