https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #22 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #21) > > > > I guess this is about spotify-client.spec? If so, there is no need for this > > since the Source: url is OK: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github > > I haven't look at the spec file inside the package, I'm referring to the > contents of the package, in particular: > > Source0: spotify-client.spec > Source1: eula.txt > > Where do they come from? Handwritten? Taken from a website? Usually Source > files have a URL for downloading or comments in the SPEC file or > instructions on how to generate them > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL). > OK, see your point and yes, this is the very thing here. Normally, you don't ask for the upstream for the spec, it just exists somehow. However, in this case we cant allow spotify-client to go into fedora, so I sort of wrap it into lpf-spotify-client. And spotify-client.spec becomes Source0:. From my perspective, this is just how it is, but it's not obvious. I suggest that we see this package as the spotify-client package with a lpf wrapper. From this perspective spotify-client.spec "just exists". There is no other upstream for this spec, for sure. Given this, I'll gladly accept any proposal for a comment to Source0. I just can't come up with something sensible to write. The eula needs a comment, for sure. Added. Long links is a pain. Same links, changelog updated. -- 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