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=469931 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dan@xxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2008-12-08 08:54:48 EDT --- Hi Andy, I will do the review, but the recent spec needs a lot of work to be acceptable for Fedora. Please get comfortable with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and other docs at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers#Packaging - the Source tag has wrong format - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net - "%ifarch x86_pentium3 x86_pentium4" is useless on Fedora - the %ifarch to %define LibDir - use only %{_libdir} in the spec - do not use absolute paths, use macros %{_{bin,sbin,lib,...}dir} - do not check whether %{buildroot} == "/" in %install and %clean - do not gzip man pages, it is done automagically - drop the %pre and %post scripts almost completely, rely on the content that Fedora provides (we have net-snmp, specific location for MIBs, ...), they should contain handling of the install shared library (call ldconfig) and take care of initscript - use only the new names for utils (i_*) to prevent conflicts with other packages -- 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