https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097426 Flavio Leitner <fleitner@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fleitner@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #5 from Flavio Leitner <fleitner@xxxxxxxxxx> --- # # The DPDK is designed to optimize througput of network traffic using, among # other techniques, carefully crafted x86 assembly instructions. As such it # currently (and likely never will) run on non-x86 platforms # ExcludeArch: pp64 ExcludeARch: ppc Excludearch: s390x why not use ExclusiveArch: i386 x86_64 ? Also, there is a capital R in ExcludeARch: ppc line. This is a multi-license package, and the guidelines requires additional explanation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios ------8<------- In addition, the package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. The actual implementation of this is left to the maintainer. Some suggested implementations include A comment right above the License: field: # The entire source code is GPLv2+ except foolib/ which is BSD License: GPLv2+ and BSD Including a file as %doc which contains the licensing breakdown for the packaged files, then using: # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING Noting the license above the appropriate %files section: %files %doc Changes # Python %{_bindir}/cobra-util %{_bindir}/viper-util # LGPLv2+ %{_bindir}/gnu-util %{_bindir}/rms-util # BSD %{_bindir}/berkeley-util ------8<------- It misses BuildRequires: libpcap-devel Otherwise the package looks good to me. -- 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