https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811485 --- Comment #13 from Guido Aulisi <guido.aulisi@xxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry for the long review, but this is a quite hard package IMHO (In reply to Erich Eickmeyer from comment #11) > > You didn't use the latest spec when unretiring this package and cut some of the recent history, which could be useful. > > Unfortunately, that spec wasn't available in src.fedoraproject.org, so I had > to use the one from the last known good build. In other words, I couldn't > find it. It was the commit before retiring https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/non-daw/tree/531a1f8e8db4351b6fb73a5bf4db91c33be52d0f > > Versioning is not correct. Latest version in Fedora was 1.2.0-18... > > so you should increment by one and start with 1.2.0-19%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist} > > Fixed. > > > License should be GPLv2+ and ISC (there is one file with ISC license) > > Fixed. This should be exactly GPLv2+ and ISC > > Many source files have incorrect FSF address, this must be corrected by a patch, there is a sed script that can help do this. > > Done. > > > You can't modify COPYING file because only upstream can do that, but you should notify of the incorrect FSF address and maybe send a patch. > > The initial sed script didn't modify the root /COPYING file, so it must be > correct. However, there is a sequencer/COPYING file that has the wrong > address that I did not modify with the patch. Should I have? > > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > This looks like it mostly has to do with the icon files/directories. I don't > understand what is wrong with the %files for each individual package not > owning these. I think Requires: hicolor-icon-theme is missing from main package > > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > > I'm not clear as to what is going on here. This should be ok now > > [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > > Again, I'm not clear on this, but it appears to have something to do with > the manpage warnings (which are justified in the .spec file)? This should be ok now > > If it completely comes down to it, another package of mine (raysession), > which is API compatible with this package, has been approved/accepted, > meaning we can drop this package if it fails to meet guidelines. The > upstream on this particular package has been hostile/nonresponsive to other > developers historically. The only other minor issue I see know, after enabling verbose build are some compiler optimization that should be avoid in Fedora, like -O3, which get appended to Fedora build flags. -- 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
