http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1728
--- Comment #5 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> 2011-05-04 17:51:25 ---
Had a second at work, I reviewed as much as I could the Review guidelines.
I think the License in the spec file should be updated:
License: GPLv2
Found in ./COPYING-2.0
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/X11/app-defaults
If the files that go in this folder are not needed (they are in the resulting
package) I think this needs -rf since it puts files in the directory and rm
will not remove a directory by default.
No %{buildroot} or %clean. So I assume this package is intended for F13+ (no
EPEL)
I know common practice for subpackages is to require the main package
i.e.: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
But the packaging guidelines recommend arch specific as well:
i.e.: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
In this case since it's just an editor I would expect it to work fine but is it
still more approprite to include the arch?
Verified it builds in mock for both x86_64 and i686.
--
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.
You are the assignee for the bug.