https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341 --- Comment #4 from Simon Farnsworth <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Other gstreamer1 packages[1] use "GStreamer" not "GStreamer1" in the summary; I'm copying them for consistency. Is it worth breaking consistency for this one package? I've updated the spec and the SRPM to use %{python-sitearch} for the binary locations, as they depend on the .so, and to be . I've also switched the Python dependency names as suggested on that wiki page to be explicit about the use of Python 2. Upstream have pointed out that their next release will be able to build for Python 3 as well as Python 2, from the same source; when they make their next release, I will change this SRPM to build two binary RPMs. I've filed a bug upstream about the wrong FSF address[2], and applied the patch to the SRPM for now, edited to only patch files that are present in the prerelease I'm packaging. Finally, I've put the new spec file and SRPM in the same place as before: http://90.155.96.198/sfarnsworth/gstreamer1-python.spec http://90.155.96.198/sfarnsworth/gstreamer1-python-1.1.90-1.fc19.src.rpm [1] I checked everything found in http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?match=glob&type=package&terms=gstreamer1* [2] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=715182 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review