https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317939 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Benji Wiebe from comment #2) > Thanks for taking the time to look at this... > > Description: See if you like the new description better. The acronyms are > what most users would recognize, so I left them in, but added some more > words to make it plainer for those who aren't familiar with it. The Summary is great: concise yet understandable (for somebody like me who has no idea what this package does). But %description should be a bit longer: what can you do with this package, what is the output, is special hardware required, etc. Doesn't have to be exhaustive, one paragraph is enough. Consider that users who have no idea are sometimes looking for something in a list of hundreds and hundreds packages and you cannot assume that they have any area knowledge (the description is not only to let people use your package, quite often it is to let people know that your package is not useful for them). > Version: Using the format YYYYMMDDgitSHORTCOMMIT now. Yep, that looks good. > BuildRequires/Requires are now split out onto separate lines. > What you said about diffability makes good sense. During review it is customary to bump the revision after major changes, add stuff to %changelog, and upload the SRPM under a new name. The spec file is updated in place. This way it's possible for the review to go back and look at the previous version. > For Systemd, I'm not sure I've got it right yet. I had been going off > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Packaging but apparently > that is out-of-date information? I don't think it's out-of-date, just slightly dated ;). There are parts which talk about old Fedora, but it correctly mentions what applies to newer versions. > The default ownership of %{_datarootdir}/%{name} and > %{_datarootdir}/%{name}/public_html looks correct to me. It show be owned by > root:root and everyone should have read permissions but not write > permissions. I meant rpm package ownership. Your package creates those directories so it should own them. > Also I removed the two Requires:, as they were unnecessary. Good ol' rpmlint. Hm, I don't remember what those were. That's why it's helpful to keep old srpms accessible. -- 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