https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110386 --- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to František Dvořák from comment #4) > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #3) > > > > > Maybe it is not needed to instal it, or alternativelly you can use GPLv2 > > > license for the -example subpackage? In eihter way, you can ask upstream > > > about licensing: they are intended to use LPGL for codec2 project and maybe > > > they would rather relicense the menu.sh file under the same licesne? > > > > I'll ask but I may just change it. While I am not specifically a programmer, > > I am a contributor and have commit access to upstream as I wrote and now > > maintain their cmake build system. > > > > OK. Maybe there can be needed the original author to confirm? But it is only > a small script anyway contribued to LGPL project... I can change the license of the subpackage, might be the path of least resistance for now. > > > 6) Is the build inside build_linux needed? (I guess you use it because it is > > > mentioned in READMEs?) > > > > Both cmake and I prefer out of source builds. It's in the readme because I > > wrote it. :) > > > > OK, I understand. :-) Plus cmake is not able to do distclean, right? It can handle in source builds but it's not preferred. Also, if a package has both autotool and cmake then when cmake is executed it will overwrite some makefiles, doing an out of source build solves this issue. > > > 10) codec2-examples should have dependency on "%{name} = > > > %{version}-%{release}", not the -devel. Was there any reason for that? > > > > Maybe I should rename the package to codec2-devel-examples? It's not needed > > for the main package at all. > > > > It's not needed IMHO. I think users will understand codec2-examples is not > needed for functionality of the codec. > > It is only the Require, I think there should be "%{name} = > %{version}-%{release}" instead of "%{name}-devel = %{version}-%{release}"... The examples also include files useful to the binaries I moved into -devel. This way if you install the example package, it pulls in the -devel package, which pulls in the library. I don't think the example package without the -devel package would be very useful. > > > > > Enhancements: > > > > > > > > > 14) Is possible to use something in %check? > > > > > > There is a testsuite, but if I understand corretly, it is not intended for > > > automatic testing. (it is more for codec developers?) It could be commented > > > in the .spec file that the testsuite exists, but it can't be used. > > > > It's not designed to be automated yet. My plan is to add automatic testing > > via ctest but the current developer is more interested in codec2-dev than > > codec2 so I'm not sure if it will happen anytime soon. > > > > In fact, I'm moving the binaries to the devel package as they are not > > terribly useful except for development (and testing) purposes. > > > > Maybe examples could be better place? codec2-devel subpackage could be for > developers using the codec2, or BR for other packages. I renamed the example package to codec2-devel-examples, I think this best conveys it's use. SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/codec2.spec SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/codec2-0.3-2.20140727svn1771.fc20.src.rpm -- 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