https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Gustav, I know your project and I'm pleased that you want to package Tupi for Fedora :) I'm not a sponsor, but I can help you review your package Initial Comments: - Please put the specs in plain text somewhere on their website along with the resulting SRPM and publish the links here - Please add in "blocks" field the tag FE-NEEDSPONSOR http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group - If you have no plans to build for EPEL5, please remove * BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * %defattr(-,root,root) - I see your package does not generate any shared libraries, therefore should not use the scriptlet to call ldconfig http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries - You can use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead of %{buildroot}. Both are acceptable, but just be consistent. Example: Incorrect make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name \*.la | xargs rm -f Correct: make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} find %{buildroot} -name \*.la | xargs rm -f Why you marked as a comment this line? #make %{?_smp_mflags} Is there any specific reason for not using it? According to the project page_Tupi 0.2-git01 is the latest revision, please package this version and naming according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines Regards -- 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