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=817306 Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-29 11:10:08 EDT --- - # Prefer static build because it only generates an unversioned .so %configure --disable-shared --enable-openssl --enable-ipv6 Why not building a versioned .so then? That would make it way easier to update this package, without updating metaglest each time... When you have a static library, this MUST go into a -static subpackage. So the -devel must provide it in this case, but I highly prefer building a versioned .so and ask upstream to do so too... In both cases the devel package needs to require the main package (if existent), e.g. in your libminiupnpc package. - License is wrong: src/ and include/ is LGPLv3+ in cocoa/ are BSD/MIT/LGBLv2+ which are all GPL compat according to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main but unused in the build. To be on the save side, it'd be best to "rm -rvf cocoa" them in %prep... -->> License is LGPLv3+ - Are the patches send upstream? Please make a note on that in the spec file - Development/C is a non-standard-group, I'd use Development/Libraries here too. -- 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