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=455187 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-20 05:51:32 EDT --- TODO items: * Version field should be 0 instead of 0.0.0 * Instead of using "svn co" and later removing svn files, you should use "svn export" * You should add verbatim commands used to produce tarball, not only one (svn co) - see this spec, for example: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/flashrom/devel/flashrom.spec?view=markup * There is rev. 691 in svn. Would you mind to update your package? * Using only checkout date in versionin is insufficient at all. You should use svn revision (and date, if you wish) instead. * Main package should contain doc/short-desc as well. * To avoid building empty debuginfo-subpackage you should add %define debug_package %{nil} at top of your spec-file. See this spec as an example: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/nagios-plugins-check_sip.spec * I'm in doubts of naming scheme for devel-subpackage. Actually we can use erlang modules in development w/o sources :). Maybe it would be better to name it src instead of devel? Just my thoughts, anyway... * You should use -p switch for "install" command, in order to preserve timestamps. Frankly speaking in this case (checkout from VCS) there is not so much sense, but lately, when official tarball may be introduced, it would have more meaning. -- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
