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=674006 Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |richmattes@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-31 19:29:34 EST --- I'll handle doing this review. 1) The package version is a little wonky. The package naming guidelines would have you use a format like "1.0.0.25-0.1.%{gitrev}git%{dist}". Note the dot instead of an underscore between the 0.1 and gitrevision. Likewise, your changelog entry should read "1.0.0.25-0.1.4c9ff978git". There are no explicit examples for git, but the svn examples all have "svn" coming after the numbers. I don't think it matters all that much since the 0.1 part of revision should be bumped each time, nullifying all the junk after the next decimal point. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages 2) When you install files using the "install" command that ship with the tarball, like the SamplesConfig.xml, you should use -p to preserve the timestamps on the file. 3) Looking at the scriptlets, you're only registering the libraries on a new install, and unregistering them when the package is erased. Do you have to re-register libraries if they change at all? 4) When you build the source tarball, you should rm -rf the Platform/Win32 folder. There's a bunch of pre-built windows dll junk and a Visual C++ redistributable in there that don't need to go into the Fedora SCM. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review