https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216279 --- Comment #2 from Dave Johansen <davejohansen@xxxxxxxxx> --- I fixed all of the issues below with the details below. The update .spec and source .rpm can be found at the same links as before. (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #1) > > License: BSD > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text I extracted the LICENSE from README.rst and included it in the base package (please let me know if it's need to be in the -devel package). I also emailed upstream to request that it be added to the source distribution for a future release. > > Patch0: cppformat_so_name.patch > > Patch1: cppformat_lib64.patch > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Patch_Guidelines I added references to the commits where these issues have been fixed upstream for a future release. > > %files doc > > %doc doc/html/ > > > %package doc > > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > > Even if the guidelines don't say anything about it [yet], please keep plain > documentation packages free from superfluous dependencies. This -doc package > certainly does _not_ need the base library package to be installed. It is > much more convenient, if documentation packages can be installed without > pulling in unnecessary dependency-chains. Sorry, this was a copy and paste error from the -devel package. -- 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