https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975309 --- Comment #2 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Dave! Here are some remarks/recommendations/improvement about the spec-file. This applies to your ascending/blocked pkgs, too: * Your links are not direct linking. You should upload them to somewhere direct linking is possible. If you don't have own webspace for this, you possibly want to follow the instructions given here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Upload_Your_Package After your request got approved, upload spec/srpm to there and update the Spec/SRPM URL-Tag in your bugs, please. * There are lots of obsolete BRs is the spec. Remove them, please, so the spec-file focusses on the real, additionally needed ones. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 * doc-subpkg explicitly requires main-pkg. This should not be the case, because the docs don't need binaries. Usually someone wants to read the docs BEFORE installing the software. * For the above reason LICENSE should be packaged withing doc-subpkg, too. According to the guidelines this is OK. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplicate_Files * %defattr(-,root,root,-) is obsoleted and was only needed on rpm < 4.4. Even el5 shippes a more recent version of rpm. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions Cheers, Björn -- 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=7Sl7KSkYL7&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review