https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977 --- Comment #10 from Michele Baldessari <michele@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Mikolaj, (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #8) > 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. Makes sense. I've cleaned it up to use the traditional %patch approach. > chmod calls in %install should be avoided, please use %attr macro in %files > section instead. Ack, done. Although without chmod in install I need to be more verbose in the %files section. (i.e. To avoid a file being listed twice I need to list files or directories explicitely). Not sure if there is a clever way around that? > 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". Ack, I've done so. > You are mixing some macro styles: %SOURCE2 vs %{_bindir}. Please either use > %{SOURCE2} and %{_bindir} or %SOURCE2 and %_bindir (the first option if > preferred). Ack, I've changed that. > 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). Let me double-check here with upstream because at least one icon seems in the public domain as well and while we're at it, I'll ask for clarification about the whole set of files. FWIW (while I sort out the license stuff with upstream): Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp-1.6-4.fc20.src.rpm regards, Michele -- 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