Overview
Request 198871 superseded
Submission (reworked without a wrong source url) for 13.1
- Created by LarsMB
- In state superseded
- Supersedes 198824
- Superseded by 199414
-
Open review for
factory-repo-checker
-
Open review for
-
Open review for
legal-team
Request History
LarsMB created request
Submission (reworked without a wrong source url) for 13.1
factory-auto accepted review
Check script succeeded
factory-auto added a reviewer
Please review sources
factory-auto added a reviewer
Please review build success
factory-auto added a reviewer
Please review sources
factory-auto added a reviewer
Please review build success
licensedigger accepted review
{"delegate": "new package r>3"}
licensedigger added a reviewer
{"delegate": "new package r>3"}
saschpe declined review
Don't rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install. OBS already does this.
Generally we don't put the spec file under GPL but rather MIT (check for the standard header). You can drop the %clean section, the default is sane. Why %description is that low? "%files" is enough if the package name is the base name.
saschpe declined review
Don't rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install. OBS already does this.
Generally we don't put the spec file under GPL but rather MIT (check for the standard header). You can drop the %clean section, the default is sane. Why %description is that low? "%files" is enough if the package name is the base name.
saschpe added a reviewer
Don't rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install. OBS already does this.
Generally we don't put the spec file under GPL but rather MIT (check for the standard header). You can drop the %clean section, the default is sane. Why %description is that low? "%files" is enough if the package name is the base name.
superseded by 199414
