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 --- Comment #2 from Anthony Green <green@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-07 11:50:20 EDT --- Thanks for taking the time to review this. (In reply to comment #1) > > 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+ Fixed. > > > > Summary: An LV2 host library > > Suggest dropping the "An ". > Fixed. > > > %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. > Fixed. > > > %files > > %doc AUTHORS COPYING README > > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > > %defattr ought to be moved one line up. > Fixed. > > > %{_libdir}/*.a > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries > > Fixed. > * The slv2.pc pkg-config file adds a redundant -L/usr/lib -lrdf from redland.pc > Not fixed yet. > > * 0.6.2 is available (still marked unstable, though) > I haven't updated version. > > * 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. > I'll look at librdf. > > * src/world.c contains hardcoded /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib paths > also on 64-bit platforms! > Fixed with perl in %prep section. > > * The only real blockers: > * licence > * static lib > * hardcoded lib paths Thanks. New versions here: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/Fedora/slv2.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/Fedora/slv2-0.6.0-2.fc10.src.rpm -- 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