Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456190 --- Comment #15 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-23 05:41:41 EDT --- Watching closely your new spec file I noticed other things: * %configure --with-fdtarball=%{SOURCE1} is enough to set prefix and mandir (and a lot other things) To understand this, try: $ rpm --eval='%configure' * %setup -q should be enough. Your %setup -q -T -b 0 doesn't make sense: http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-macros.html * Release tag is still not correct: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Release * I suggest you to explicit the desktop file in %files in this way: %{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop It is much more readable than: %{_datadir}/applications/* * I don't think this is needed. BuildRequires: binutils Otherwise please explain. * Have you tried building the RPM in mock to test your dependencies? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MockTricks * Forget my previous comment about Source URL, but I really want to know why you are packaging a development version. What are pro's and con's compared to the latest stable version? * As Rahul said, you should really need to follow this guide to get sponsored: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored You only seems to comment on this bug. This is not enough to find a sponsor and get sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review