Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #4 from Michael Cronenworth <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #3) > So it looks like just a few things: > 1) Add "MinGW build.." to the summaries Fixed. > 2) Determine whether the secondary packages need a %doc line http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing > 3) Fix the upstream source URL. Fixed. > Lines that begin with 'Group:' are superflous, as Fedora makes no use of > them. They can be deleted from your spec file. Removed. > There are also a few other files that might be potential %doc files that > you're not including. For instance, you expressly convert NEWS from Latin1 > to UTF-8, but then you don't include it in the %doc line. Why is that? > README is also a potential for inclusion, I would suppose. Copy-pasta from the native spec. I've removed NEWS, but added README. We don't include most documentation that can be found in the native package. > This is my first official review as a packager, so bear with me. Kalev is my > mentor, so we can inquire of him regarding anything uncertain. Thanks. http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-libarchive.spec http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-2.fc17.src.rpm -- 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