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=813842 --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> 2012-04-29 05:06:46 EDT --- Hi, - any reason to ship the static library ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2 - And I think the french translation should be improved, cause this does look like it was done by a automated system, and there is still some weird sentences. - The first patch should be commented ( ie, say what it does, how it was sent upstream, and have a better name than %name.patch ) - I am not sure that %{_libdir}/libglfw.so.2.7 %{_libdir}/libglfw.so.2.7.5 belong to -devel, likely more to the main rpm - this is likely wrong : Requires: GLFW3-devel - there is uneeded BuildRequires ( like gcc, make ) BuildRequires: gcc, make, libX11, mesa-libGL, mesa-libGLU and this is better for patch review to have them on 1 line per BuildRequires ( so you can see at the first sight if something is added or removed ) I also think you need to add -devel, not regular library. ( and they are added to the -devel, but that's IMHO counter intuitive ) -- 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