https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346284 Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Davide, thank you for the package. > Issues: > ======= > - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. > Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0'. > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 This was reported by the `fedora-review` tool Small issue, but I don't like the inconsistent whitespace between sections. Please pick whether one or two blank lines and stick with it. > rm -rf %{buildroot} We used to do this in the past, but not anymore. As per: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections > The contents of the buildroot SHOULD NOT be removed in the first line of > %install. You can remove the line > Source0: https://github.com/Bosiux/hexcurse/releases/download/v1.60/hexcurse-1.60.tar.gz Multiple things: - We recently started referencing a single source as `Source:` instead of `Source0:` - It's better to not hardcode the version and package name here. You can use %{name}, %{version}, and optionally even %{URL} variables. This way, once a new version is released, you'll only update the `Version:` tag. - The URL seems to be wrong, it returns 404. This may be helpful https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags > %description The description should be wrapped to 80 characters per line https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description > URL: https://github.com/Bosiux/hexcurse This is the biggest one, but I am not sure what the rules are. This is obviously a two weeks old fork of a decade old https://github.com/LonnyGomes/hexcurse . I checked all the major distributions and everybody packages hexcurse from that upstream. It doesn't sound reasonable to me to package the fork. But as I said, I am not sure what the rules are. I will have to check. If your fork contains changes that are required for the software to run on Fedora, I'd rather package the original upstream and added the changes as downstream patches https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_patch_guidelines Or maybe we should package this one instead? https://github.com/prso/hexcurse-ng/ -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346284 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202346284%23c1 -- _______________________________________________ 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
