Comment # 7 on bug 3953 from
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.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarffortress-0.43.05-5.fc26.src.rpm


You are receiving this mail because: