https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3953
--- Comment #7 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com> ---
I've cleaned up the spec, removing the commented out blocks. I also put all the
BRs on their own lines and cleaned out some redundant ones.
I also changed the ExclusiveArch tag to i686 instead of using the macro (I only
used the macro to begin with because the guidelines still use the macro--
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Runtime_Dependencies).
There are also a couple of other fixes that I'd pushed to my personal
repository (
https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/) that hadn't
wound up here, so the spec release is now at .5.
I suppose I probably should write an AppData file for DF as well, since it
provides a graphical application. I'll get that done over the next few days.
Is the license tag acceptable? Or should it say something like "Custom"
instead?
Source URL:
https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarffortress...
SRPM URL:
https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarffortress...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.