https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227972 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- First thing, I really recommend that you do a fedora-review run, as these days there's not a whole lot more I could say other than just pasting its output. You should have fedora-packager installed, so you can just add yourself to the mock group and run fedora-review on your srpm or even this bug number. Then fix what it suggests should be fixed. Issues: ======= Before I get into fedora-review stuff, it's worth noting a few things fedora-review doesn't mention (or can't really know): It would be nice to add: URL: https://github.com/dulsi/SDL_mng so folks know where this fork is from. It's nice to make it really obvious that this is a fork. Might even be worth a comment. If you're going to maintain a fork, might as well fix those FSF addresses (though this isn't an issue for this review at all). Nuke that %defattr from the %files section. Don't own /usr/include/SDL. Use %{_includedir}/SDL/* instead. The -devel package needs a versioned and arch-specific dependency on the main package: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package I guess its worth asking if you really need to package the static library, since the guidelines really discourage it. And here are the issues fedora-review points out: - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: SDL_mng-devel. Does not provide -static: SDL_mng-devel. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in SDL_mng See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries - 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 LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text All of these appear to be valid and need fixing. I think the package is good with those fixed. -- 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