https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2374723 --- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) [...] > > > 1. Licensing break-down is missing. The following licenses are not listed: [...] > Fixed I think you overdid it. Such detailed break-down impairs spec file readability. If all files in a directory have the same license, it makes little sense to enumerate all of them. Please list just the directory, e.g.: #/src/lib/crypto/Base64.cxx #/src/lib/crypto/Base64.hxx #/src/lib/crypto/MD5.cxx #/src/lib/crypto/MD5.hxx -> # src/lib/crypto [...] > > 4. Please sort BuildRequires: alphabetically. Most of them could be converted to pkgconfig() style, too. > > Sorted alphabetically. Why is pkgconfig() style preferable? Package names change sometimes, while auto-generated pkgconfig() virtual Provides: stay the same. Also, that reflects better what meson build is using for dependency detection. > Dependency smbclient skipped: feature smbclient disabled Any reason not to enable this? > Program mkisofs found: NO As above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2374723 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202374723%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
