https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977 Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michele Baldessari from comment #5) > It's rpmlint that is unfortunately not smart enough, the patch has been > applied. Patch has been sent upstream but has not been applied there yet. > I tend to avoid %patch because 'git am' fits nicely in my workflow and > brings the same result (like the x11 folks do) > I've added a comment about the patch. I understand that you may prefer "git am", I prefer it too, but that's not how patches are applied in Fedora. And there is a reason for that. Packages need to follow common practices. If every package had its own way of doing everything then it would be hard to understand what they are doing and maintain them. In other words, when submitting a package to Fedora sometimes you need to sacrifice some of your individual preferences in favor of distribution practices. chmod calls in %install should be avoided, please use %attr macro in %files section instead. You are packaging version 1.6, why not use this tarball? http://github.com/hgn/%{name}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz If you use it then you'll be able to get riod of commit and shortcommit macros as well as reduce %setup macro call to just "%setup -q". You are mixing some macro styles: %SOURCE2 vs %{_bindir}. Please either use %{SOURCE2} and %{_bindir} or %SOURCE2 and %_bindir (the first option if preferred). After having a quick look I think that license tag should be "GPL+" instead of "GPLv3" as there is no explicit GPL version specified ("If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."). There is some bundled MIT-licensed code in documentation. It should either be removed or its licensing corrected (which means installing license file as documentation and adding "MIT" to license tag). Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review