https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853888 --- Comment #3 from Lyes Saadi <fedora@xxxxxxx> --- > Here is the new version of the project : https://filebin.net/9txmvp0wqo1jn6tq I can see that it is already much, much better! Good job! > Project was hosted on github a long time ago : https://github.com/Pixelec/OSPOOC. > But since github moved in the hands of microsoft, I don't find this place trust worthy anymore. This is why I personally use GitLab :P. > codecolla.com is meant to become a tiny forge hosting project and their developpment. > It actually hosts a git server but no http server yet. `URL` tag is for HTTP, you have to point to a website (or the website of a Forge)! > I'm not comfortable with the idea of add a project to a forge to remove it some months later. > Furthermore, it looks like fedora community hosts a git repo, with bugzilla, > what a place of choice for project that target only this distribution... Yep, Pagure is awesome (and open for all projects!), and is open source and pretty lightweight! There's also Gitea and many other great choices that I would recommend (over savannah)! > May I set the URL to a git URL, looks like no, only web site expected. > But anyway, tell me if it's mandatory and I'll move it to nongnu savannah. The `Source` tag (not the `URL` tag as explained above) HAVE TO (It is 1000% mandatory, unless, as I said, it fallen under two exceptions specified by the Guidelines) point directly (without Cloudflare/Anti-bot protection) to the source .tar.gz archive. > I autogenerate the spec file from project's content and git logs. > I would keep the makefile without the install target. > And keep infos of installation process in the generated spec file. > Can I do so or what you pointed is mandatory? That is fine, I guess. I'm a bit worried about the `ln` though, I never did that in a spec file, and you might need to add %{buildroot} to the first argument! I am not sure, though! But you should really replace `make NAME=%{name} VERSION=%{version}` by `%make_build NAME=%{name} VERSION=%{version}`. This will only add parallelism to speed up building, and shouldn't cause errors! > The compiler flags, it sounds great to me, I'm looking for doc on this subject. > Once I'll know exactly what macro defines inside the makefile, I'll use it. > I hope by the end of the week. `rpm -E "%set_build_flags"`! This is mandatory, you can override some parameters, but you shouldn't, and it generally points to a bigger problem within the code. > May I add one point... I'm French and my english might be bad. > Can someone check manpages? In my opinion, > they are at least as important as the lib itself. Oui, j'avais vu ça en vérifiant si vous étiez Packager ou pas :P. Je penserais à y jetter un coup d'œuil ;)! But let's keep the rest of the conversation in English :). Hope a sponsor sees this ticket, so he can proceed to a formal review :P (it shouldn't take too long)! Basically, people not already in the Packager group need to be "approved" by a sponsor. And this generally is done with their first Review Request! -- 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
