https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207847 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2) > This is an informal review of your spec file without any required > modification. all is SHOULD only. > > * Please use a more specific name to avoid any confusion. Auto is too > generically though it is the upstream name. > Suggestion for a descriptive name: auto-code-generators > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines > > Name: auto for me is enough auto > * Use the %{url} macro to shorten the links. > > URL: https://github.com/google/auto > > Source0: https://github.com/google/auto/archive/auto-value-%{version}.tar.gz > URL: https://github.com/google/%{name} > Source0: %{url}/archive/auto-value-%{version}.tar.gz > > * Use the %{name} macro consistently: pleae replace all occurances of auto > (or the final package name we chose) with the %{name} macro. this for me is useless, ... i not interested to use %{name} macro in the way you want it, for me it makes no sense > * Be more specific in the summaries of the subpackages. Given one word only > seems to be too few for a descriptive summary. If in doubt, you could use > %{summary} then for the %description text to have the text there, too. any ideas? > * Are there no dependencies between the subpackages? Why is there a common > subpackage? dependencies are all listed have see the source root? auto-common is a java library -- 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