https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323214 --- Comment #3 from Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ralf Senderek from comment #1) > These are my preliminary thoughts about your spec file: I fixed a few of these in: https://github.com/cgwalters/git-evtag/pull/18 Do you want to review that? > > 1) Please add a meaningful description that does not only repeat the summary. > People should be able to decide whether or not they'd need to install this > package > > 2) You need a %changelog entry, please provide such an entry at the end of > your spec file, and keep it up-to-date This however I'll only do in dist-git, not usptream. I don't like rpm %changelogs - IMO they should be deleted in favor of a combination of bodhi, dist-git git logs, and upstream git logs. > 3) Please specify the upstream URL in Source0, not only the name of the file. Ordinarily I don't do this because my modules tend to use submodules, which runs into https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Submodules Which is something https://github.com/cgwalters/rpmdistro-gitoverlay handles out of the box. > 4) Your spec file does not mention Requires:, but from the summary I'd expect > that both git and gpg/gpg2 would be needed at runtime. Fixed these. > 5) store your COPYING file under %(_datadir)/licenses/%(name) and tag it as > %license Just saying %license seems to do the former. > 6) The Group-tag is missing. Also it's optional, it would be nice to place > your > binary in a group. Not sure...nothing really uses it. > 7) Please create a man page for your binary. Yeah. -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx