https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990272 Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bugs.michael@xxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dcbw/libmbim.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dcbw/libmbim-1.5.0-1.20130815git.fc20.src.rpm [...] The diff against previous package looks almost good. With the new snapshot, the license for the utils package is GPLv2+ now actually, not "GPLv2 and GPLv2+". > The documentation is pre-generated ... Oh! That should be explained in the spec file together with info on how to reproduce the git snapshot: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control The timestamps on the html doc files get refreshed during the %install step. Some packagers try to fight that using "install -p" with either make install INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %make_install INSTALL="install -p" but that doesn't affect many files in this case. Just to be sure, with the latest stable release being 1.4.0, it seems the next official release following these 1.5.0 snapshots will be 1.6.0. Else the pre-release versioning scheme would be applicable: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages [...] That's no major issues that require another update for this review request. It's more convenient to apply remaining fixes/changes in Fedora package git. APPROVED -- 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=ruuS6KuJ74&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review