Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887611 --- Comment #7 from Till Bubeck <t.bubeck@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for your feedback, which is reflected in an updated version: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bubeck/vdr-vnsiserver.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bubeck/vdr-vnsiserver-0.9.0-0.2.20130104git04258ed894.fc17.src.rpm (In reply to comment #6) > Some other drive-by comments: > - As Mathias says, it's better to offer to trade reviews than to just ask > for one. What do you mean? Should I offer to review someone elses packages if he reviews mine? Am I allowed to review other peoples packages? > - Obviously you have updated the spec, but there are no notes in the > changelog [1] done > - Are the %{optflags} in effect as required by[2]? yes, done > - The Buildroot: tag is not needed unless you are heading for EPEL5 [3] removed > - Use %global instead of %define [4] done > - You should inform upstream about the bad FSF address in COPYING [5] done, see https://github.com/opdenkamp/xbmc-pvr-addons/issues/137 > I'm particularly concerned about Mathias comment #2 about the lib/platform > files. What happened to those? I am only packaging the vdr-vnsiserver. The git repository holds many more plugins and addons and the DLL and binary files from comment #2. After getting the feedback I only package a subfolder of the git repository because I did not need the others at all. Therefore, they are not part of the Source0 anymore. For a description on how to prepare the Source0, see the comments in the specfile. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=opPGj7jIMk&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review