https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836821 --- Comment #8 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> --- > Is the license of ADL compatible with GPLv2? Where's ADL? > I think you should BR libudev-devel. systemd-devel doesn't seem to be > necessary though. udev is now part of systemd and the libudev-devel is provided by systemd-devel On a F-18 system do "repoquery --whatprovides libudev-devel" > The sentences in %description should have periods, as they are proper > sentences. Fixed > There's a Windoze executable that should be removed in the %prep section: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre- > built_binaries_or_libraries Fixed > The files section could be more specific: > > %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.* or at least libcec.so.*. Stating the exact name of > the two executables in bindir also wouldn't hurt. Done > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 > files > have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/836821-libcec/licensecheck.txt > > Dual licensed commercially and GPLv2+. > > The license must be "GPLv2+" -- not "GPLv2"! Updated > [!]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > Doesn't need one, I think. What systemd files. There's none there. > [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. > Note: %define tarfile %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 > > That macro is unused and name isn't defined at that point in time anyway. > Please delete or correct! Fixed. > libcec.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/cec-config > I think this is bogus Yes, it is. > libcec.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libcec-1.9.0/COPYING > Please contact upstream! Already have. > That's not a tragedy. On the other hand, the macros don't serve a purpose > there. They serve as documentation > libcec.src:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1) > Please solve! Fixed. SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libcec-1.9.0-2.fc17.src.rpm -- 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