https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129390 Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkadlcik@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for the package Brigham, and also for making the changes > Created attachment 1913864 [details] > New SRPM that passes rpmlint Typically you should always post the updated package the same way you did in the bug description, i.e. Spec URL: ... SRPM URL: ... There are tools like `fedora-review` that can parse the BZ comments, find the newest package, download it, run some checks on it, and make the reviewer's life easier. > BuildRequires: freeglut-devel SDL2-devel cmake gcc gcc-c++ This is fine, and I have no problem with this. Just from a personal experience, I find it better to write each dependency on a new line, like this: BuildRequires: freeglut-devel BuildRequires: SDL2-devel BuildRequires: cmake BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: gcc-c++ This way you can have as many dependencies as you need and you are not limited by line length, and also it is much clearer in git diffs what dependency was added and when. But if you prefer the single-line format, that's fine as well. I just wanted to make it known, that there is an alternative. > %license COPYING I am a bit uneasy that there are both LICENSE and COPYING files and they are not the same (although they both appear to be GPLv3). Since you are the upstream developer, I think you can easily fix this within the project itself. Or I would just do %license COPYING %license LICENSE to install them both. Otherwise, the package looks good to me. --- Since this would be your first Fedora package, you will need to get sponsored into the `packager' group before this package can be accepted. I recently became a sponsor and I would like to sponsor you. That would make it my responsibility to guide you through the processes that you will do, and the tools that you will need as a package maintainer. I would also be there to answer your packaging-related questions, or to help you find somebody who knows the answers. But before that, I should make sure that you will be able to fulfill your package maintainer responsibilities https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_maintainer_responsibilities/ Please take a look here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#requirements I think the most beneficial option for you as a sponsoree would be reviewing 2-3 packages from somebody else. It will help you understand the packaging guidelines better but at the same time, it will help somebody else to get also their packages accepted to Fedora. If you are interested, please ping me on #fedora-devel IRC, my nick is FrostyX, or send me an email, and we can get started. I will explain what is necessary as we go. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129390 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
