https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 --- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #5) > Ad summary: > > Probably something like "Modern Qt-based web browser" -- Slightly less > generic AFAIC we should not use technical terms like tool kits or programming language in the summary, they don't matter from a user's POV. > Ad filtering provides: > > I think, there's a more up to date method: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering Thanks, this is slightly easier, however I wonder if it was approved by the packaging committee. > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must > be documented in the spec. > > Please add a comment in the spec file! Actually this is not really a multiple licensing scenario because the resulting binaries or libs are not under separate licenses. If code that is licensed under different licenses is compiled into one binary or library, then the most restrictive license applies. GPLv2+ and BSD compiled into one plugin results in GPLv2+, GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ results in GPLv3+. We could as well just declare the whole package GPLv3+, nevertheless I have listed the individual licenses and added a comment to the spec. > [!]: Buildroot is not present > Note: Buildroot: present but not needed > > Since qupzilla requires Qt 4.7, it will never go to EPEL5. > Thus the buildroot is not necessary. I still think the ">= 4.7" could > go away as well, since every version of Fedora has Qt >= 4.7. Fixed. > [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q > --requires). > > You could add --as-needed to avoid libm and libQtXml, if that makes any > sense. Done. > [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > > Themes loose their original date Fixed. Thanks for this careful review! -- 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