https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #3) > I'm not a packager yet, hence the review is unofficial. > > - Patchs > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Patch_Guidelines > Patch01 -> Patch1 > 0001.... -> remove 0001, etc > 0002-build-sys-create-all-destination-directories-and-do-.patch -> why an > ending - ? > For each patch, please add the issue URL to upstream That's a git thing, it truncates patch subjects at a certain width. I'll add a link to the upstream PR. > - %description devel > The %{name}-devel package contains header files for developing > applications that use %{name}. > => Header files for developing applications that use %{name} OK. > - %build > Why are you forcing cflags instead of making patchs ? Hm, I don't understand. Why should I make patches? > > - %check > %ifarch aarch64 > ./test.sh || : > %else > ./test.sh || : > %endif > => why this "if" with same inside block ? Typo ;) > - %license > Have you forgotten COPYING.bsd ? No, COPYING already contains the text of the BSD license. But I guess it's safer to include both, I'll add it COPYING.bsd too. > - %doc %{_mandir}/man3/kcapi_*.3* > => man pages are not %doc Indeed, will fix. (In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #4) > Also : > > - BuildRequires gcc make are not needed No, fedora-review is misleading you. This changed a few months ago. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2. > - manpage should go to main package I don't think so. Those are all man pages in section 3, only useful for development. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx