Spec URL: http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//getdns.spec SRPM URL: http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//getdns-0.1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: getdns is a modern asynchronous DNS API intended to make all types of DNS information easily available as described by Paul Hoffman. This implementation is licensed under the New BSD License (BSD-new).
1. -devel: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} --> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Drop Requires: pkgconfig 2. %{_docdir}/getdns/AUTHORS %{_docdir}/getdns/COPYING %{_docdir}/getdns/ChangeLog %{_docdir}/getdns/INSTALL %{_docdir}/getdns/LICENSE %{_docdir}/getdns/NEWS %{_docdir}/getdns/README.md %{_docdir}/getdns/spec/getdns-0.5.tgz %{_docdir}/getdns/spec/index.html 1) Remove %{_docdir}/getdns/INSTALL Please. 2) You shoud use %doc to mark them as docs. IMO some of them belong to main package, some are in -devel. %{_docdir}/getdns/AUTHORS %{_docdir}/getdns/COPYING %{_docdir}/getdns/ChangeLog %{_docdir}/getdns/LICENSE %{_docdir}/getdns/NEWS %{_docdir}/getdns/README.md 3) manpages use "*" at the end. 4) You forgot to own %{_includedir}/getdns/ 5)
Created attachment 889235 [details] changes Hi Christopher, made a couple of changes, will come back later with new spec+srpm. Thanks for taking the review. Would you consider also looking at the netresolve review, once I address the problems already reported? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499 Pavel
Please provide me the revised spec and srpm if you want to review your changes. I always point out the spec issues(may be cosmetic or not) first, then run fedora-review. I can take these 2 bugs, in return I will ask you for two swap reviews later.
This looks like a duplicate of #1070510
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1070510 ***
(In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #4) > This looks like a duplicate of #1070510 It's actually the other way round.
uhm no. 1090501 is 20k bugs later, it was also filed at 2014-04-23 09:26 where 1070510 was filed at 2014-02-26 20:43, two months earlier. Regardless, I added us both as owner as you can see in the SCM request I did for 1070510 during the weekend
(In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #7) > uhm no. 1090501 is 20k bugs later, My mistake. I looked at the date and probably looked at some comment instead of a summary. Thanks for explanation and sorry for creating the duplicate. I probably just did a google search instead of searching bugzilla directly. > it was also filed at 2014-04-23 09:26 > where 1070510 was filed at 2014-02-26 20:43, two months earlier. > > Regardless, I added us both as owner as you can see in the SCM request I did > for 1070510 during the weekend I see. Feeling honored, thanks!