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=787713 --- Comment #4 from MartinKG <mgansser@xxxxxxxx> 2012-02-07 03:44:48 EST --- Thanks for remarks! >Contrary to what README, license is noted as LGPLv2+, see licensecheck -r ><some_dir>. [ see comment #3] So: we agree that License: GPLv2 is OK?! >I think the devel sub-package has to require pkgconfig, but I can't find that >in the rules right now. You are certainly right. The .pc file lives in /usr/lib{64}/pkgconfig, owned by pkgconfig. Fixed. >The devel package needs %{?_isa}, see >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package Oops... Fixed. >I suggest to use the name macro in the files section as well, as you're using >it in other places. Fixed. >You might want to include the sample dir as documentation to the devel package. Fixed. >The build fails for me on F16 x86_64: >... >+ autoreconf -i [cut] This is strange. Both the old and the new srpm builds (built) on mock, f15-x86_64 and f16-x86_64. The new also builds on koji, f16. What's going on? Also fixed the source URL, which just was wrong. New srpm at: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/free-solid/free-solid-2.1.1-2.fc16.src.rpm?a=ViKFwcxqtho New rpm spec at: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/free-solid/free-solid-2.1.1-2.fc16.src.rpm?a=ViKFwcxqtho -- 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