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=744339 --- Comment #14 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-15 16:52:04 EST --- Ok! We're almost there, I promise! In doing my formal review (and therefore more in depth) I did notice a couple of things which should all be pretty simple to fix. 1. In your Source0: tag go ahead and replace all instances of "dieharder" with %{name}. (nit pick) 2. The source has a very clear separation of libdieharder from the binary, including separate COPYING, NOTES, and README. I think the *BEST* way of handling this is to go ahead and create a separate subpackage for the library. That way it can have it's own %doc. Just let me know if you need any help. You'll need to add an arch specific "Require:" for the library package in the main package. If you're opposed to doing that, then at a minimum you should rename the doc files in the libdieharder source to append ".lib" to each of them and add them to your existing %doc. 3. There's a manual directory which includes latex based documentation that when built produces a pdf. I would normally describe the process here but I already added it to my copy of your spec file so I'll just attach it here instead for your review. I also ended up creating a separate libs package :) Feel free to use it or not, it just seems like the author designed the library to be both with or separate from the binary. Richard -- 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