https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Petr Pisar <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar <[email protected]> --- The URLs lead to HTML files. Could you please provide a Spec URL to the spec file, like <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aysabzevar/v-rpm/main/v.spec> and do the same with SRPM URL? I briefly looked in to the spec file and I have three remarks: - Upstream has 0.3 version. Could you update this package use that version? I guess you are not going to update this package every week, and then it makes sense to package the releases version. Not a weekly snapshot. Then the Source address should also use that version, like <https://github.com/vlang/v/archive/refs/tags/0.3.zip>. - The CC command in %build phase does not use distribution-wide compiler flags ($RPM_OPT_FLAGS) and linker flags ($RPM_LD_FLAGS). Even if it's an intermediary program, it would be great to use them. - The spec file claims MIT license. But %files section nowhere packages a license file with %license macro. MIT license requires copying the license text alongside binary executables. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
