https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895592 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > Hmm...No javascript packaging guideline now, only a draft. > > From fedora-review seems OK, but somethings maybe you should fix: > > 1) I found that mixture of tab and space in License and Source0 tag. Agree, will fix it > 2) This library has its GitHub page, and the author has tagged the 3.0.83 > version. > > https://github.com/alexgorbatchev/SyntaxHighlighter/tags Yes, but the github only provides the "sources" and we don't have (yet) needed stuff to run the build (npm, jake, ...) In fact, "master" use node.js stuff, while old release 3.0.83 use phing. I will look if we can build from source (it seems we need lot of fix because it use a very old version... of course... 2010) But don't know if it worth the work... as will be broken as soon as a new version will be released. Build for JS is mostly: concat + compress (result still readable) > 3) Is this spec for EL only? I've seen many obsoleted lines and buildroot > tag. This spec target EL-5, so yes buildroot, ... are required. > 4) A little more blanks between sections. Not mandatory. > > 5) License: MIT or GPLv2. Why not "and"? Because https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios -- 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=Zp6xgnOLqB&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review