Bug 834991
| Summary: | Review Request: perl-Paper-Specs - Size and layout information for paper stock, forms, and labels | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jitka Plesnikova <jplesnik> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Petr Šabata <psabata> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | northlomax, notting, package-review, psabata |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | psabata:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-06-27 06:42:24 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 835028 | ||
|
Description
Jitka Plesnikova
2012-06-25 07:48:13 UTC
I had to updated spec. The links are the same. Koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4192445 Again, only informal review: Rpmlint comes out clean: >rpmlint perl-Paper-Specs.spec >rpmlint perl-Paper-Specs-0.10-1.fc18.src.rpm >1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. One issue was found when running the review: >[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > Note: Source0: http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/J/JO/JONALLEN/Paper- > Specs-%{version}.tar.gz (Paper-Specs-%{version}.tar.gz) Patch0: > fix_Avery_5393.patch (fix_Avery_5393.patch) while you can't use %{name} for the source, you might want to consider using %{name} for the patch. Have you submitted the patch upstream? If you have, please mention the status of the patch as a comment in the specfile. You can also give a link to a upstream bugtracker or mailing list archive if there is one. The patch was submitted to the upstream. I mentioned the bug in the changelog, but I forgot to add the link before line with Patch0. I'll add the link and update the name for patch. Updated. Links are same. The package seems okay. I'd just suggest starting the %description with a sentence, e.g. "This package provides features such as...". I suppose that would look a bit better than a simple bullet list. It's up to you. Approving. If you are going to use the version number in the patch name, it would be easier to use %{version} so you only have to change it version number one places when the package is updated.
You will also have to bump the release number on the package and add to the changelog
(In reply to comment #6) > If you are going to use the version number in the patch name, it would be > easier to use %{version} so you only have to change it version number one > places when the package is updated. Patch filename don't usually get updated unless they need to be changed. The version in them shows for what version onwards it's applicable on -- at least in my world. Using the %{version} macro in there makes no sense. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Paper-Specs Short Description: Size and layout information for paper stock, forms, and labels Owners: jplesnik mmaslano ppisar psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig Git done (by process-git-requests). Thank you for the review and the repository. |