https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255370 --- Comment #3 from Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jan Chaloupka from comment #2) > > [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. > > It's customary to use a person's full name where the changelog currently lists > > a Fedora account name. It's not a blocker, but my guess is it's an oversight. > > Right, it is my local settings. This is in every changelog message I > generate so... Correct email is sufficient. Looks like this is addressed in the review in bug #1255179. > > [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > The package description should be more than just a copy of the summary. > > Sometimes it is impossible. Besides, all golang packages are for building > only. They are not supposed to be for devel and installation on user local > machine. So for buildtime dependencies this is sufficient. You're not suggesting that it's impossible for this package? > > Go packaging draft suggests that "noarch" should also be in the > > ExclusiveArch list. > > It is meant for installation only. As devel subpackage are always no arch, > no need for that. ExclusiveArch is used for projects/packages that build > from source codes. This is relevant only for el6. This case is covered by: > %if 0%{?go_arches:1} > ExclusiveArch: %{go_arches} > %else > ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} > %endif I couldn't understand what you're saying here. > > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > > The latest version is not always the right candidate. runc uses this commit. > The newer can have problems with backward compatibility. Once the newer > version is required, the package gets updated. This information is not present in either .spec file. How would someone who's new to co-maintaining one package or another know that upgrades to the two need to be coordinated? > > [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > > Why is copying() not global? > > It is a parametric macro. So you can not expand it at the time of > definition. %global is expanded right away. Which would result in empty > %license. Are you sure that's necessary here? When I try changing it, the files show up in the right place with the right file flags in the binary packages. -- 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