https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850469 Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #3) > > man pages > I use tito for packaging. And it include in src.rpm only files with > extenstion from this list: > '.tar.gz', '.tgz', '.tar.bz2', '.tar', '.zip', '.jar', '.gem', ".spec", > ".patch" > So I would either had to make patch from it or do it manualy. > And since I'm lazy as hell I prefer easy maintenance. Therefore I created > tar from those files. They have to be download from obsucure location so > there is no way for rpmlint to check md5sum, so I think it make no harm. May be time to update Tito to support .pod files? Tools you are using cannot be excuse to provide suboptimal .spec files. I already explained what harm it does. It would be the same as compressing .patch files etc. Moreover, I believe (although not 100% sure) that the tgz file will get always uploaded into the look-aside cache, which will be definitely less effective in handling of updates to this file. Actually, you should use the following line: Source1: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/download.php/7826/30313/29377/5301/ascii85.1.pod which would fix the one remaining rpmlint warning. > > BuildRequires: perl - What is it good for? > For pod2man. Negative. I tried to remove it and it still works. Please remove the BR: perl, unless you have evidence that it is needed on Fedora(RHEL) != 19 * Man generation flags - Could you please keep the flags suggested in the ticket where you took the manual pages? If you omit them, there is stated "Perl" all over the place, which is not true. * Separate license file - Could you pleas query upstream about separate license file? >From the review, I have the feeling, that you are not using mock for testing your packages. May be you should consider to look into it. It is worth of the time spent to learn. Since these are more or less just cosmetic issues and the package looks good otherwise, I APPROVE the package. However, please consider to include fixes to my comments prior importing. -- 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