https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879740 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- %_summary macro is not necessary. Just write out the first Summary normally, and then user "Summary: %summary" in the subsequent ones. %gittag0 is also not necessary. Just use "v%{version}". Group tag is not necessary [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections]. It's nice not to repeat the %description. I'd suggest something like this: %global _description \ This package provides bindings to the generic input event interface in Linux. \ The evdev interface serves the purpose of passing events generated in the kernel\ directly to userspace through character devices that are typically located in \ ... %description %_description %description -n python3-evdev %_description etc. "-n %{name}-%{version}" is exactly the default for %autosetup, so it's not necessary. It's better to specify the files under %{python[23]_sitearch}, rather than using a glob. Something like this: %files -n python3-evdev ... %{python3_sitearch}/evdev/ %{python3_sitearch}/evdev-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/ and similarly for python2. This would catch any mistakes in the installation of a wrong version or name. BuildRequires should generally be one-per-line. This makes diffs much more readable. > As far as the license headers are concerned, I find them somewhat redundant and I'm not too enthusiastic about adding them to all source files. Ack. There's no strict requirement for this, and certainly lots of packages don't follow this. The license must be unambiguous, that's all. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx