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 --- Comment #10 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-24 17:20:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > Here are some more comments that should be useful: > > - libvanessa_socket/vanessa_socket_daemon.c is GPLv2+, not LGPLv2+, so I'm > fairly certain the license field needs to change. You are right. > - You actually do need to run autotools because the stock configure script adds > an RPATH: > vanessa_socket.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/bin/vanessa_gethostbyname ['/usr/lib64'] > vanessa_socket-pipe.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/bin/vanessa_socket_pipe ['/usr/lib64'] Hm, it is strange, because is not appeared in i586 architecture! Thank you. Joshua Roys, also thanks, I follow this guidelines to cut off it. > - The only other complaint rpmlint has relates to a lack of %doc files in the > devel subpackage; I'm not sure how important that is here. > vanessa_socket-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation It is not important in -devel sub-package. (In reply to comment #9) > > 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. Fixed, thanks. > > > Group: Development/Libraries > > Run-time libraries still belong into group "System Environment/Libraries". Ok, changed. Please, can you provide link where I can read about it more? > > > 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 I ask Simon Horman, wait answer. > > 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. It was built on x86_64 successfully. But you are right, it is ambiguous line at all. > > > > %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. This splitting and README duplication comes from history based author spec. READMY contains generic information about author, licensing and both subpackages. I think there no error include it in both. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1941649 http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/vanessa_socket/vanessa_socket-0.0.10-7.fc11.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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review