https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077081 --- Comment #8 from Jan Holcapek <holcapek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #7) > 0.) Please package a more recent version. > > 4.3.0 seems already available. I understand your concern, however, this is intentional: the reason why I decided to package spread (in this particular version) was to encourage the undisclosed vendor of undisclosed (proprietary) database system to not ship spread 4.2.0 binaries as part of their (messy) RPM, but rather rely on soon-to-be-part-of-Fedora/EPEL package of its own. If you are not strongly against, I would packge version 4.2.0 first, and push an update to 4.3.0 only then. > 1.) Source can not be downloaded > > > spread.src: W: file-size-mismatch spread-src-4.2.0.tar.gz = 736189, > > http://www.spread.org/download/spread-src-4.2.0.tar.gz = 2628 > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > Please don't use the URL in Source tag then, but in a comment instead: > > # Download it from: http://www.spread.org/download/spread-src-4.2.0.tar.gz > Source0: %{name}-src-%{version}.tar.gz Fixed: relative Source0, comment w/ download URL. > 2.) Why do you ship static package? > > Static linking is strongly discouraged and should be avoided whenever > possible. Fixed: no -static package. > 3.) Why do you override docdir with pkgdocdir? > > Apart from that it won't build with older RPM (such as in el7 and older), > it's not a very usual thing to do and result in path names that are not > stable across package releases. Fixed. > 4.) Libraries are shipped in -devel packages > > You probably want to include in the main or -libs package. That will need > moving the ldconfig scriptlets as well. Fixed: -devel package w/ headers only, -libs package w/ shared libs. > (In reply to Jan Holcapek from comment #5) > > Regargind the invalid-license warning: I've dropped a question to > > legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx asking whether Spread Open Source License is > > suitable for a Fedora package. > > Thanks. I believe they are merely clarifying the legal matters without > changing the meaning and their advertising clause is very 4-clause BSDish, > therefore it should be fine for Fedora as long as nothing GPLed links to it. > Adding FE_LEGAL dependency. That's good news. -- 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