Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com> 2012-08-25 11:14:04 CEST
Hi Giles! I'm not a sponsor just an ordinary packager but I can help you to
improve this package.
The License field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. It
is not a list of licences used in the source files:
If you pull sources from upstream's revision control system instead of using an
upstream tarball, follow this guideline:
Remember to use a Name-version-release compatible with the Version and Release
Guidelines. In particular, check the section on Naming Snapshots:
If you can only build the package on i686, use "ExclusiveArch: i686" instead of
Remove some optional spec stuff (BuildRoot:, %clean, %defattr...) that is no
longer needed unless you want to build an RPM for EPEL.
Is subversion really required to build this package?
Why does it require evince? If it is to read the docs please note that the
program must run properly if everything included in %doc is not present:
%cmake macro already sets CFLAGS. Watch the outout of "rpm --eval %cmake".
You can also pass parameters to the %cmake macro. Why do you call again cmake
(no macro) after %cmake (macro)?
Every changes like removing executable bits from doc files must be done in
Moreover, there is no need to gzip man pages (rpm does this for you) or moving
docs around (you can tell there they are in the spec file).
Desktop files must be installed using desktop-file-install:
Moreover, icons are not places in the correct location:
If you install icons there you must also use icon cache scriptles:
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.