https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110386 --- Comment #6 from František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > > > > 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. > OK. You probably forgot the License field in the *-examples subpackage yet? Also the main license fields should be rather "LGPLv2", there is no "and above" text in the license/copyrights. > > > > 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. > I see, you want the examples subpackage as sort of metapackage for codec2 developers. I just wanted to say the C heades are not strictly necessary for sample files and the octave code. But it's up to you, if to keep codec2-devel dependency there... About the binaries in *-devel: I think the example binaries would be better placed in the main codec2 package or rather in the examples subpackage. There would be no problem combining codec2 internal things (samples) with examples potentially useful for end users. I would vote for keeping the name codec2-examples and just enhance the description, that it covers both areas. -- 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