https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846782 --- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Just a few nits. Non of them is showstopper, just NTH. * Separate license file ~~~ ... snip ... sed -e '0,/^## License/d' README.md >LICENSE ... snip ... %license LICENSE ... snip ... ~~~ I don't think this is necessary. The guidelines states [1]: ~~~ MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %license.[ ~~~ So if upstream does not provide standalone license file, then you should mark it by `%licence`. If it is not there, then you should ask upstream to provide one, but not to create it. In any case, it would be useful to link upstream ticket requesting the separate license file. * The subpackage does not need separate license file. The subpackage provides separate license file: ~~~ %files doc %license LICENSE ~~~ But since it refers the main package: ~~~ %package doc Summary: Documentation for %{name} Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} BuildArch: noarch ~~~ It is not needed. * Unneeded cleanup ~~~ rm -rf _scratch_* ~~~ I don't think this cleanup is really necessary. Using Mock to build the package, this directory is always deleted prior build. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ -- 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
