https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133479 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > each package has (to have) a license. > > This is kind of hacky, but not forbidden. It is highly questionable to create an empty src.rpm for a meta package instead of creating the same meta package as a _subpackage_ of an already existing src.rpm. There is no vdsm related package where this could be added? Please give more details about why this must be a new src.rpm and how this package or its name will be used. | %global libname vdsm-arch-dependencies | | Name: %{libname} Only to use %libname once in the entire spec file? So far, this package and the review request look like some half-baked idea. Has it been discussed anywhere before submitting a review request? -- 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