https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045963 --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks Pranav for looking at the package. (In reply to Pranav Kant from comment #7) > - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) > for the package is included in %license. > Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license Thanks - I changed this in cabal-rpm.git. Fixing > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 32122880 bytes in 678 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation See bug 1149850. I would like to fix this for F23, since it should really be done across all packages otherwise it is really hard to know which packages have doc subpackages or not - ie when to require/buildrequire across packages. > - I am not sure about this, but maybe make it a hardened build ? Though, > this is by default in F23. I think ghc-rpm-macros already tries to do the hardening as possible for builds: currently it does most of the CFLAGS but not LDFLAGS since they seemed to break ghc linking completely. Maybe it can be improved more for F23 perhaps. > - s/Gtk+/Gtk+3/g in "Summary" ? to better reflect that it is for Gtk+3 > and not Gtk+2 ? Okay I am changing it to "Gtk+ 3", thanks for the suggestion. I made a pull request upstream to reduce the cblrpm (cabal-rpm) diff: https://github.com/gtk2hs/gtk2hs/pull/111 * Mon Jun 29 2015 Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.13.8-1 - update to 0.13.8 - mention Gtk+3 in summary (#1045963) - use %%license (#1045963) Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-gtk3/ghc-gtk3.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-gtk3/ghc-gtk3-0.13.8-1.fc22.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10238318 -- 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