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=701801 --- Comment #1 from Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-11 18:19:13 EDT --- Hi, some comments: * The description is too long. I haven't found a guideline about this but IMHO with less than 10 lines is enough. Consider that $ rpm -qi ast outputs almost two screens full of text, hiding the rpm information. * The upstream version of the package is 5.6-0. What do you thonk of translating this to 5.6.0-1 instead of 5.6-1? If upstream releases 5.6-3 you will have to edit the Source macro to get the correct source. (Weird versioning, by the way) * Source should contain a full URL * Everything inside /usr/share/ast is documentation and is not needed to work with the libraries. As such, I think the contents should go to %docs * Furthermore, the docs are about 40 M in size. Removing the .tex files reduces the size to around 25 M. These files are good candidates to go to a ast-doc package. If you don't want to make a separate doc package, the library documentation should be in -devel subpackage. When I have more time, I will see if the Makefile can be patched to "remove the unresolved symbol" warnings. -- 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