https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #21 from Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> --- > The version field is the upstream spotify version, I don't really see what > kind of comment that would be? Added the fact that this is indeed upstream > version. Ok after the comment you've added. I'm not following you on these comments, can you explain a bit more? > > > [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > > > [!]: SourceX is a working URL. > > > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Note: 0 or more than one spec file in srpm(!) > > > See: (this test has no URL) > > > > There is no documentation nor procedure on how to regenerate the source > > tarball. > > I guess this is about spotify-client.spec? If so, there is no need for this > since the Source: url is OK: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github I haven't look at the spec file inside the package, I'm referring to the contents of the package, in particular: Source0: spotify-client.spec Source1: eula.txt Where do they come from? Handwritten? Taken from a website? Usually Source files have a URL for downloading or comments in the SPEC file or instructions on how to generate them (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL). > In future, it would be good you mentioned which spec you are referring to.. > New problem ,for sure. I haven't looked at the bundled spec file; but I assume the review is only for the package that is actually built and assembled in the Fedora infrastructure. Should I also look at the lpf spec file (Source0)? -- 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