https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823105 Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxx> --- - I see you are still doing a sed-line, which can still break after upstream changes that file (sed -i -e "5,11d" rebar.config). - Source0 is still no valid URL, but this is not such a problem since the github links are very strange. - Why don't you use %{name} for the PatchX-lines? So for example: Patch1: %{name}-0001-Typo-fix-no-such-function-gen_server-cast-3.patch - Why do the Requires-lines say you need the specific same arch? Is it incompatible with the libraries of a different architecture? - In %files, you could have removed the %dir %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/priv/ and remove the asterisk from the %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/priv/* - The %setup-line has a magic version number in it: %{upstream}-%{realname}-d5f714a. As this is the same name as in %setup -n, you can use %{buildsubdir} to refer to this directory. The first one is the only one I think is really critical, as this can make it break somewhere in the future without any warnings. I think you could fix this before pushing and won't need a re-look, so hereby I declare this package as APPROVED -- 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