[Bug 985] Review request: ProjectX-0.90.4.00-2

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #11 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2010-08-01 04:17:44 --- (In reply to comment #10) Correct, although you can appeal for reviewers or request review swaps on the rpmfusion-devel list. I forgot all about this one, sorry about that. I was really keen to get this app into rpmfusion, but have little java build experience to enable me to say much more about this package than I already noted. That said: 1. Every time you make a published change to the spec, you need to bump the release number, for eg. the original and current spec have (almost) identical version-release. The fact that you missed doing that suggests you might need to re-read the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Release I think the snapshot falls into the post release category. This is important to help others track the package changes, and to ensure upgrade-ability with the standard tools (rpm/yum/packagekit). eg this should be at least -4.... so that it will replace -3 the last version. 2. The changelog info was not updated, other than overwriting the date of an existing item, which doesn't make sense. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs ps: you might light to try using a visual diff tool like meld to review your changes, so that these can be placed in the changelog. It's a very different spec (over 80% larger). An item should be added (not for every line change) to describe the essence of each change: - update to snapshot from cvs 2009-xxxx ? - something about gcj ?? 3. description: it's non-standard to double-space sentences. 4. Source: should at least include a correct upstream path. I think it would be useful to place a comment: - showing the release download link. - the fact that you are using a snapshot, and why (eg last release 2006, fixes only in snapshot) - how the snapshot is generated, and preferably a script to generate the snapshot, so that others can easily verify the download. 5. It can ease reading of the spec to separate the main sections with two-new lines. At least this should be consistent through the spec. 6. %buildroot%_datadir : while Hans mentioned the reasoning behind using %{_x}, it would seem to make the spec clearer by using them eg in: %buildroot%{_datadir} , and is also widely used in fedora. That's all I have for the moment. I'm happy to help further once you have a new spec to review. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.