https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229903 --- Comment #8 from Marcin Zajaczkowski <mszpak@xxxxx> --- IT took me a while, but I was able to manage it > [!]: Buildroot is not present Removed > [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/configure.ac:17 I can ask the project author to replace it with LT_INIT by the next version. Do you see it as a blocker and I need to create a patch? > 3. Drop changelog not from you. ALSO, leave a blank for each changelog entry. I'm not convinced to drop the old changelog entries. There is a history how the package evolved before it became a part of Fedora. In many packages available in Fedora there is that history kept. > 4. Epoch: 1 > This doesn't make sense at all. The original specification author took it for unknown reasons. The benefit of using it would be an ability to upgrade to the never version when available in Fedora (in other case it would have to be done manually by removing old package). Nevertheless you think it would be a good move I can remove it. > 5. Drop all Group tags. Done > 6. RPM is not dumb like past, drop eplicit requires unless RPM can't detect and pull in. I was able to remove NetworkManager-devel from BuildRequires and gtk3 from Requires. Looking at the generated requires maybe also dbus could be removed from Requires as there is a reference to libdbus-1.so.3, but dbus-libs in theory could be installed without a dbus package. > 7. %if 0%{?fedora} > 17 Done > 8. Requires: ppp > Not enough, once ppp bumps the version, this plugin will be broken. I changed the minimal ppp version to 2.4.6. In Fedora 23 there is 2.4.7 and it seems to work fine. Do you suggest to set 2.4.7 as the highest allowed version? I don't if changes in 2.4.8 will be compatible with sstp plugin or not, but maybe it is too strict constraint? > 9. %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} > 10. if [ ! -f configure ]; then Done > Would you stop copying the spec form others wholesale? I could do it from scratch, but it seemed a better solution for me to reuse existing spec file for a sibling project which is already in Fedora (which should be quite ok as it passed the initial review - in hindsight I see that the pptp package is quite old (2007) and could stand our from the current standards). >> This package contains software for integrating VPN capabilities with the SSTP server with NetworkManager (GNOME files). > Please rework the description, `with...with...` sounds redundant and not grammatical. The description is exactly the same in all NetworkManager-*-gnome I've seen. Nevertheless I changes it to: > This package contains software for integrating VPN capabilities using the SSTP server with NetworkManager (GNOME files). English is not my mother tongue, so please propose something else if you don't like it. SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/szpak/network-manager-sstp/c4d04a21428183a5d3f5ba2165666dc32851d998/NetworkManager-sstp.spec SRPM URL: http://timeoff.wsisiz.edu.pl/rpms/NetworkManager-sstp/NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10-6.fc23.src.rpm -- 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