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=518318 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |NotReady --- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-15 07:24:05 EST --- > Requires: vanessa_logger >= 0.0.8 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > %package devel > ... > Requires: vanessa_logger-devel >= 0.0.5 Questionable version here. Above it's 0.0.8, in the BuildRequires it's 0.0.8, and here it's 0.0.5. > Group: Development/Libraries Run-time libraries still belong into group "System Environment/Libraries". > vanessa_socket_daemon.c This file is in need of a licence clarification by its author. It's likely he just forgot to replace the GPLv2+ header, but as long as that one is present, the following guideline applies: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario > mkdir -p %{buildroot}/{etc,%{prefix}/{lib,bin,doc}} This doesn't look right. If creating %prefix/lib is really needed, the build will fail on 64-bit where %prefix/lib64 would not be created. And %prefix/doc isn't used by the %files section. > %doc README The file is duplicated in two packages. In the base library package the file contents refers to "vanessa_socket_pipe", which is not included in that package. Nothing explains where to find the missing vanessa_socket_pipe. And in the separate vanessa_socket-pipe package, the same README file refers to the library. => Splitting off the vanessa_socket_pipe program is highly questionable. Especially, since the base library package contains another program in /usr/bin already, so nothing is won by splitting off one tool. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review