https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279175 --- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Alexandre, (In reply to Alexandre Detiste from comment #2) > > I also keep an history of my changes on GitHub, is there a more appropriate > location where to put this specfile, No, during review any place where you can provide links to the specfile and srpm is fine. Once the pkg passes review and becomes part of Fedora than Fedora's pkgs git is the canonical source for the specfile. > or at least shouldn't this location be linked back from the specfile > in some machine-readable way ? Nope, all official spec files are kept at: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/ So there is no need to include a link to the canonical source inside the specfile since there is only one canonical source for Fedora specfiles. > https://github.com/a-detiste/fedora/commits/master > > 3) rpmlint: > > - I've fixed the tab vs spaces. > > > - Didn't found a way to silence the spurious warning about "Inno" being a > typo. > "W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Inno -> In no, In-no, Inn" Right, that is no problem, these messages can just be ignored. > - It's the tarball at GitHub, the one with the > "Please do not use the automatically generated source archives below" > disclaimer, mea culpa. You are using the right tarbal, the problem is that upstream seems to have replaced the tarbal (which is sorta a bad thing to do for upstream, but it happens) and your srpm has an old version inside, please replace it with the latest version from upstream. (In reply to Upstream Release Monitoring from comment #3) > adetiste's scratch build of innoextract-1.5-2.src.rpm for f23 completed > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11908977 I assume this was a build with a spec file fixing all the issues mentioned before. When ever you do a new revision during pkg review please add a comment in bugzilla with links to a new srpm and new specfile. I've done a review using the current: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/a-detiste/fedora/master/innoextract.spec for now, full review below: Good: ==== - rpmlint checks return: [hans@shalem rpmbuild]$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/innoextract-* SRPMS/* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (zlib) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Needs work: ======= - source matches upstream: Did not match for -1 srpm, no -2 srpm so could not check - Please put a blank line between changelog entries, iow make the current changelog look like this: * Thu Nov 19 2015 Alexandre Detiste <alexandre@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1.5-2 - Remove "suse_version" blocks - Drop Group: and BuildRoot: lines * Sun Nov 08 2015 Alexandre Detiste <alexandre@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1.5-1 - Initial Fedora package based on upstream spec-file for 1.5-1 If you can fix these 2 minor issues in a -3 version, then I will approve the package and once it is approved you can apply for membership to the packager group and I'll sponsor you. Thanks & Regards, Hans -- 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