https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294568 --- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > >Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libmtp11.spec > >SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libmtp11-1.1.10-1.src.rpm > > Why your src package does not contain a %{?dist} tag? Because I did not define %dist when during "rpmbuild -bs" to create this source RPM for review. This should not matter, because the spec file has the proper %{?dist} tag inside. > - COPYING is not tagged with %license > > You can use %license and %doc to package all documentation files > instead to make $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_pkgdocdir}. As per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#The_.25license_tag %license is not supported on RHEL 5 and 6. > - BuildRoot and cleaning commands are not required on EPEL6 and above. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#BuildRoot_tag > > - %defattr present but not needed Yes, but both do not hurt. Given I am also thinking about RHEL 5, the BuildRoot tag still seems good to me. > - All examples binary files are not PIE, not full RELRO. > libmtp.so.9.3.0 is not full RELRO. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages The change you refer to is only mandatory for Fedora >= 22, while this is EPEL. If you would build this package on Fedora >= 22, full RELRO should be given (like for libmtp itself). I don't see a reason to enforce a Fedora- only related guideline on EPEL 5 and 6. > - HTML documentation can be installed ina -doc sub-package. I don't treat the documentation as large/important enough to put it into an own package. Note, that I try to keep the package libmtp11 in sync with the libmtp one (from Fedora) as much as possible. Additionally: > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. This does not work for EPEL 5 and 6, they do not support noarch subpackages. What we end up with would be one -doc per architecture, not really any gains. Please let me know if you disagree with me and my answers - and if so, also why exactly. Thank you :) -- 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