https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #21 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- === packaging === I still see some minor issues: - modules/COPYING should not be removed: it is very important because it gives a right to use the modules almost freely. - in a couple of places '-n %{name}-<subpackage>' is used, but '<subpackage>' suffices. - MODULES.html can be packaged too. I prepared an updated .spec file (attached) with those changes. === the rest === > How does your packaging attempt compare to their attempt? What release > cadence are you planning to maintain? An out-of-date gnulib package is less > useful than just using gnulib from upstream. That is a very good question. I think there's a place for gnulib in the distribution, but indeed, only if it is regularly updated. Mosaab, I'd be happy to co-maintain the package with you, to ensure that there's always somebody to prepare the update. -- 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