https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287822 --- Comment #6 from Adam Miller <admiller@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #3) > So the 330 bundled provides make me sad at the idea of maintaining a stable > version and bug fixes, but I guess since guidelines have been relaxed, > that's acceptable. Yeah, I'm not the biggest fan myself. :/ > > However, I have a few questions: > > - Why is there test for %if "%{dist}" == ".el7aos" ? Is this specs file > supposed to be used for more than Fedora/EPEL ? That is something that came from upstream, I was hoping to align with their spec work as much as possible but I don't mind removing that. > > - you should remove %defattr around, since that's no longer needed. Will fix > > - why a obsolete, since that's a new package ? (ie, we usually do not deal > with externnal package to Fedora in Fedora, so why the exception for this > one ?) Also from upstream, but in a Fedora context I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense. > > - the summary is not that helpful, and description is just a copy of the > summary I think the summary is accurate but will fill in a better description from upstream documentation > > - the specs file mention it being generated directly by upstream. I am not > sure if that's a common practice, as it was refused for sugar, for example. > It's not a direct generation from upstream, more so "based on" the upstream generation for the sake of keeping track of the 'Provides: bundled' list. > - License must be tagged %license. Will fix -- 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