https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969631 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> --- > Summary: A general purpose cross-platform C++ library In Anaconda and package tools, which display these summaries, it looks better (and more concise) when omitting these leading articles. > License: Boost and Public Domain I'm not sure about the "and" here. Please add a comment to the spec file, which explains this licensing scenario. $ grep -i "public domain" * -R|egrep -v '(html|examples|tools)' dlib/general_hash/murmur_hash3.h: // in the public domain. The author hereby disclaims copyright to this source code. The murmur_hash3.h file applies the Boost license and copyright in its preamble and mentions modifications by the library author. As such it cannot be assumed that the entire file remains in the public domain. Therefore the lib is "License: Boost" only. Several examples contain a "public domain" header and refer to the separate LICENSE_FOR_EXAMPLE_PROGRAMS.txt file. As the entire "examples" tree is packaged in the -doc file, the -doc file could apply a different "License" tag than the base package. The "tools/mltool" program is in the "public domain", but not built or packaged. * The test build.log warns about missing build requirements. X11, BLAS. What's up there? * Is the included regression test suite suitable for the %check section? > %install > > pushd %{name} > rm -rf CMakeFiles/ cmake* Makefile > popd That's a perfect opportunity for a comment that explains why this is done. ;-) > %package doc > Summary: Documentation for the %{name} > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Independent documentation -doc packages typically don't require the base package. It should be possible to install documentation without having to install a program and all its dependencies. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=K7rhJsLCaE&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review