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=749752 --- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> 2012-01-08 18:10:24 EST --- Thank you for your review. Updated packages: SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/dmg2img.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/dmg2img-1.6.2-2.el6.src.rpm (In reply to comment #3) > Some issues I see: > > 1. I think license should be "GPLv2+ and MIT". Since the COPYING file included > in the upstream tarball contains GPLv2 I think we should use "GPLv2+" instead > of "GPL+". No. Comment is what decides and author obviously removed the version intentionally. > 2. As noted by Richard in comment #1, "BuildRequires: openssl-devel" is > required to build vfdecrypt Fixed. > 3. Dist tag in release field should be %{?dist} instead of %{dist} Fixed. > 4. Unless you're packaging for EPEL 5, I recommend you: > Remove the BuildRoot tag > Use make instead of %{__make} > Remove "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in the %install section > Remove the %clean section > Remove %defattr from the %files section I want el5 builds to work and will probably be submitting the package for el5. I changed the %make macro for make though. > 5. The dmg2img-1.6.2-nostrip.patch already used in the patch and the patch I > attached both work to produce non empty debuginfo packages. I think my version > has a better chance of being accepted in a future upstream version but that may > just be wishful thinking. I believe conditional stripping is not a good idea. If upstream accepts your patch, I'll gladly drop mine though. -- 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