https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431444 --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages Hm, upstream has unversioned libraries. So all users will have to be rebuilt in sync. It would be nice talk with upstream why this is a bad idea. Nothing you can do downstream though [https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01155.html]. You should run ldconfig scriptlets anyway, I think [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Shared_libraries]. Why not python3? Ah, OK, the code does not seem to be python3 compatible. Too bad. .tar.gz would be preferable to .zip, they're 30% smaller usually. This is a graphical application, it would be nice to add an appdata file https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData, and a desktop file. Especially the desktop file is important so that people can launch this without going to the console. This is a specialized application, so the appdata can be missing. + package name is OK + license is OK (BSD 3-clause) + license is specified correctly + builds and installs OK - scriptlets are missing (see above) + buildrequires, provides, requires look correct Looks good otherwise. -- 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