Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470914 Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bugs.michael@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> 2009-01-03 06:59:33 EDT --- > License: LGPLv2+ Web page says "Licensed under the GPL v2 or later for now". File COPYING contains the GPL v2. Only a few source files contain a LGPL header. This suggests the project is: => License: GPLv2+ > Summary: An LV2 host library Suggest dropping the "An ". > %description devel > slv2-devel contains the headers and development libraries for slv2. Suggest "This package contains the headers and development libraries for SLV2." for consistency and to avoid repeating the pkg name. > %files > %doc AUTHORS COPYING README > %defattr(-,root,root,-) %defattr ought to be moved one line up. > %{_libdir}/*.a https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries * The slv2.pc pkg-config file adds a redundant -L/usr/lib -lrdf from redland.pc * 0.6.2 is available (still marked unstable, though) * Run-time warning (in src/world.c) about Redland librdf not being new enough: $ lv2_list Warning: Unable to create "trees" RDF storage. Performance can be improved by upgrading librdf. * src/world.c contains hardcoded /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib paths also on 64-bit platforms! * The only real blockers: * licence * static lib * hardcoded lib paths -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review