https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221781 --- Comment #9 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #6) > I am still thinking that the name is misleading, see my comment #2. The package naming guidelines do not have a strict rule here and even says the package name could come from the project name or tarball name. Since the packages are not API/ABI compatible and the changes are extensive, I think having the name be different is a good thing. Additionally, appending a number to the package name is not based on the package version but on the major soversion of the library, but in this case it woulds still be "2", however the soversion may eventually be "3" and that would leave this package in a strange state. (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Dist tag is present. It was there but I forgot the "?" somehow. Fixed. > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/builder/fedora- > review/1221781-zipios/diff.txt > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL I think this is the sourceforge issue. I downloaded the tarball directly from SF without modification. > - License must be 'LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+' as there partly source with not LPGL. Per the GPL compatibility matrix[1] the combined license is GPLv2+. You don't generally list both unless it was an "OR" situation. Fixed. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/zipios, > /usr/share/cmake, /usr/share/cmake/Modules I think i fixed the doc dir, I incorrectly excluded the whole thing instead of just the html dir which is reserved for the doc subpackage. The other two should definitely be owned by the cmake package, not sure what's going on here. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in zipios- > doc f-r is confused here. You can't have an arch specific requires from a noarch package. I've made that mistake before, bad things happen. Ok, I'm verifying a new build fixes these problem and I'll pose new links. -- 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