https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116548 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng <i@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to David Nichols from comment #2) > an informal review: > > from rpmlint: > > g800.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programme -> > programmer, programmed, program me > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description > > "programme" is a noun (in British English) and should be "program" when used > as a verb (also American English should be used as per the link above). Thanks, I will correct it later. > from a review of the spec file: > > in %setup > sed -i -e 's|-s|%{?__global_ldflags}|g' \ > -e 's|-O3|%{optflags}|g' \ > -e 's|-Os|%{optflags}|g' \ > Makefile > sed -i -e 's|$(EXAMPLE_DOC)|%{_pkgdocdir}/g800config|g' README.Fedora > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment I don't think upstream will accept such changes, as the compiler flags, linker flags can be modified by downstream to match the needs/guidelines[1]. I replaced all O3 with optflags and dropped the strip flag just because I want to make the debuginfo package work. For that readme file, my initial thought was I should use asciidoc to generate one written by myself, but I don't have time now. I don't want to start an argument here about the patch style. [1]---http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags -- 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