https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161637 --- Comment #2 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package name: ok. It doesn't strictly derive from the tarball name, but follows the established naming scheme for packaged gnome-shell extensions Spec file name: ok Packaging guidelines: Only change I would recommend is to avoid %make_install. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used License: ok License field: ok License file: ok spec language: ok spec legibility: legible upstream sources: ok buildable: yes excludearch: n/a buildrequires: ok locales: n/a ldconfig: n/a bundling: none relocatable: no directory ownership: ok duplicate files: ok macro use: ok large docs: n/a %doc content: ok static libs: n/a -devel subpackage: n/a -devel requires: n/a libtool archives: n/a gui apps: none duplicate directory ownership: the /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions directory is co-owned with the gnome-shell-extension-common package. Which is ok, but I think we could make it a dependency instead without much harm. utf8 filenames: ok Summary: ditch %make_install, and consider depending on gnome-shell-extension-common, then I'll approve -- 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