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=602279 --- Comment #15 from Siddhesh Poyarekar <spoyarek@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-04 01:05:20 EDT --- Updated: http://siddhesh.fedorapeople.org/LibRaw/0.9.1-6/LibRaw.spec http://siddhesh.fedorapeople.org/LibRaw/0.9.1-6/LibRaw-0.9.1-6.fc14.src.rpm (In reply to comment #13) > 1.For rpmbuild log: > g++ -DLIBRAW_NOTHREADS -O4 -I. -w -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o > bin/4channels samples/4channels.cpp -L./lib -lraw -lm > > > Please remove -O4 and -w from CFLAGS. Fixed. > 2. rpmlint LibRaw-0.9.1-5.fc14.src.rpm > LibRaw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dcraw -> draw, craw, d craw > LibRaw.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean > LibRaw.src: W: no-%clean-section > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > %clean-section is still needed for F12 and below. I intend to package for F-13 or later, so I followed the suggestion in comment 2 > 3. Patch name: > > It'll be better to add %{name}-%{version} into patch name. > > e.g. > Patch0: LibRaw-0.9.1-configure.patch > > Patch1: LibRaw-0.9.1-configure-optflags.patch > I've fixed this to add %{name} and hard-coded the version number (0.9.1) since I expect to be using this patch across releases and want to avoid renaming patches on rebase. Upstream acknowledged receipt of the patch but has not reverted with comments on whether it will be included in the next release. > 4. Group: Amusements/Graphics -> Development/Libraries > Fixed. > 5.%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} can be shorted to %setup -q Fixed > 6. License: LGPLv2+ with exceptions > Please explain why you use this license for LibRaw. > From website, I see the license is LGPLv2+ or CDDL or LibRaw > > Please try to contact fedora-legal to add LibRaw license for fedora > > See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List Fixed this to LGPLv2. I had misread the license table in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing The library is distributed under all those licenses, but the website also mentions that "You may choose license you like more from these three.". I chose to go with LGPLv2.1 as a result. -- 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