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=226023 --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara <caolanm@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-19 08:10:27 EDT --- a) python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING* files... "If a subpackage is dependent ... implicitly ... upon a base package ... it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc." rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep COP /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING.LIB rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit) libgsf = 1.14.18-2.fc14 libgsf(x86-64) = 1.14.18-2.fc14 rpm -qp --requires RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-python-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit) libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit) So its not necessary for libgsf-gnome to include a license text as it requires implicitly libgsf whose package has a %doc. So I reckon that one is ok. b) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 c) - I needed to use 'rm -rf ... now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 d) - Please use this macro from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review