https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821511 --- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann <mgoldman@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Michael! (In reply to comment #3) > Hi, > > I am quickly looking at the spec, here is a few comments : > - patch should be annoted, ie, do they come from upstream, if not, have they > been sent, and how ( mail, link to bug, etc ) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment These patches are required to build this piece of software on Fedora. I tried to make the names pretty self-explanatory. The guidelines say it SHOULD be annotated, but it's not a MUST. > - the devel subpackage need to have the license in %doc, as it can be > installed without the main package > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing I'll fix this soon. > - not sure that the -devel should requires "automake libtool autoconf". > AFAIK, people can build against a library without using autotools, no ? I need to consult this. > - why do the -devel requires gcc-c++ ? isn't the .so usable without it ? > ( there is no .h with it, so I could use it without gcc , no ? ) Same as above - I need to consult this. > - same goes for the .la, they should not be packaged (AFAIK) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries I will remove it. > - there is a global variable not used : > %global namedversion %{version}%{?namedreltag} > so maybe it is not needed and should be removed ? Hah, yeah - I'll remove it. I'll have answers for above unanswered questions and a new package soon. -- 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