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=800930 Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR), | |799778 --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-07 16:59:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > Hello, and thanks for reviewing! :) Hi, as this is your first package I can't sponsor you but I can at least help you get it into shape before someone does. > > I'm in the process of re-uploading the files, but the srpm will obviously take > a while... Don't upload a new SRPM until you've got your sources correct - its too big. Just list them here for now. > Or are you saying the patches should be separated out and not extracted from > the debian sources? I figured it was the right thing to do since these are > patches that won't get applied upstream (I have asked), and since I wrote the > patches for Debian initially, it is the upstream for these patches, no? Correct, just include the unedited source tarball along with the required patches as diffs (%Patch0, %Patch1 .. etc). Part of the review process is to checksum the upstream tarball against what is in the SRPM. Also, don't include any of the debian license files. You also shouldn't be building any bundled libraries (enet for example), you'll have to remove those sources in your %prep section and ad a BuildRequires: enet >= 1.3. I've added a blocker on the bug you've raised for this. > > The icon-fix patch is an exception, that one is applied upstream, the header > should indicate that, should I be including this a a separate Patch# instead? > (I was pulling it in since it already exists in the debian sources) Your patches should be split as you deem appropriate. This is a good candidate for a separate patch. If upstream fix/apply something in a subsequent release it is much easier to remove a single %patch, than it is to selectively edit/recreate a large one. > I am not using svn snapshots since the SVN version will become (is?) > incompatible with the released version. Maybe there would be reason to do a > redeclipse-svn package sometime, but at the moment I do not think there is. No problem I'll have a closer look at your spec tomorrow. -- 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