https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727502 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelen <jjelen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > Release: 0.1.20130220%{?dist} I think the date in the release should be the date when you pulled the tarball from upstream, not the date when the tarball was created by upstream (especially if I see newer changes in the git https://gitlab.com/janezkonc/mcqd/ ). But that is not very important since this detail is not explicitly clarified in the packaging guidelines. I see you only packaged only the binary file which is kind of example program. I am wondering whether it would make sense to package also the header files in the -devel subpackage, if you plan to use that algorithm in some of your work/packages/tools. > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir} > cp -p %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir} You should use "install" instead of "cp" and "mkdir". > %check > ./mcqd test.clq I do not see the mcqd binary to produce exit code if it fails (but I am not a C++ programmer so I might be missing something). So I think for the check to be useful, you should check that the produced output is sane, for example the output contains "Maximum clique:" twice or something like that. Otherwise, it looks good to me. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
