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=736861 --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> 2011-10-07 03:24:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > > Use the name macro in Source0 and the files section. > > I don't fully agree with that. I used explicit "hgview" where it didn't refer > to the package name or upstream tar name. I don't think this increased use of > %{name} increases the readability or flexibility of the spec. But ok ... It depends, I think. The basic rule is to call the package like the tarball. In that case, it fits well. If you're going to rename the package for a different reason, it doesn't help. > > BuildRequires and Requires are separated by spaces, not commas. Even better: > > Put each on a separate line. > > Yes, that is another way of doing it, but I don't see any > requirement/preference for that in the Packaging Guidelines. > > FWIW http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package and > http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM_Guide/ch-specfile-syntax.html > describe it as a comma-separated list. > > It would be great of the guidelines could help making it more consistent. > You're right. The reason why I suggested putting them on separate lines is, you can spot duplicates easily. I saw that happen a couple of times, when the list of BRs was long. They're also easier to comment out. -- 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