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=435016 --- Comment #17 from Tim Fenn <fenn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-23 13:00:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > > The tarball in the source tree differs from the tarball downloaded from the > Source0 URL. In fact, the diff is almost 37000 lines long. Any idea what's > going on? > Oops - I had used a .tar.gz I created from a "make build" of the original package. Fixed. > I don't understand why you explicitly %define version and release. If you just > use: > Version: 1.09.1 > Release: 7 > then %version and %release are defined for you in the same way that %name is. > Removed. > I would argue that according to the COPYING file, the License: should be > "LGPLv2 with exceptions" but spot above says LGPLv2. I'll double check with > spot tomorrow. > Fixed. > I don't think its a blocker, but the first paragraph of %description is loaded > with acronyms which are completely meaningless to most people. A little > elaboration there would be welcome. > Sorry, alot of the stuff in the spec is cruft from the original author. Rewritten. > Any reason why parallel make is not being used? You should use it if possible, > but if it breaks you should include a comment to that effect. > It simply wasn't present before. It seems to work OK, included now. > The AUTHORS, README and COPYING files are duplicated between the packages. > There's no need to do that. > Fixed. new spec: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/mmdb.spec new srpm: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/mmdb-1.09.1-8.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