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=462251 --- Comment #3 from Tim Fenn <fenn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-01 20:14:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Some notes: > * Please also check my comments in bug 462250 > * Build failure > - Your srpm does not build: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=843282 > It seems at least "BuildRequires: libGL-devel" is needed. > fixed. > * Desktop file > - If this is GUI application, a proper desktop file must be added: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files done. > * the %version and %release defines are redundant, since they are filled > during build with the "Version" and "Release" tags content. Done. > * Source tag should include the full URI to the package; AFAICT this is not > available unless you are paying support to Delano Scientific. If I am correct > you will need to create the tarball from upstream SVN, documenting the > procedure in the spec file (usually the easiest way is to add a small script > to compose the tarball). Done. > * There is no need to prepare and fill the docs directory, a single line in > the files section like: This was only done since the python setup script does not install the files into RPM_BUILD_ROOT. > * it's the first time I see the sanity check on RPM_BUILD_ROOT before removing > it. I can't remember any guideline against it, but I'd avoid it anyway. removed. new spec url: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/pymol.spec srpm url: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/pymol-1.1-2.f8.src.rpm -- 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