https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288643 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- Please link to the raw spec file in the 'Spec URL' field. Otherwise fedora-review and other automated tools (or even running wget to get the file) don't work. The License field needs further correction (sorry, what I said above wasn't fully correct). The "and Public Domain" part only applies to the examples. If the examples were included e.g. in the -devel subpackage, than that subpackage would have a different license from the main subpackage. But I see that the examples are not packaged at all. So... 1. You should split out a -doc subpackage. The documentation is pretty big, and there's no need to install it everywhere. 2. You should include the examples in -doc. They will be pretty useful for users of the library. They don't have to be compiled. 3. Finally have License:Boost at the top of the spec file, and then License:Boost and Public Domain in the -doc subpackage. 4. Python packages include the examples, under the Public Domain license, so they should have License:Boost and Public Domain. You should also include LICENSE_FOR_EXAMPLE_PROGRAMS.txt in the %license field for those packages. > I hope I fixed everything, but probably I misunterstood you and used too > complicated way to remove dotfiles from documentation. Is it possible to > do it easier? I did not find out how to use %exclude in this case. What you did is fairly straightforward. You can simplify it a bit by doing the removal directly in %build using relative path: rm -r docs/python/.{buildinfo,doctrees} Using %exclude would look like %files devel ... %exclude %{_docdir}/%{name}-devel/docs/python/.buildinfo %exclude %{_docdir}/%{name}-devel/docs/python/.doctrees but I think that removing them in %install is better (simpler and less error prone) and removing them in %build is even better. In the build I see the following: -- Found BLAS library -- Looking for cblas_ddot -- Looking for cblas_ddot - not found -- BLAS library does not have cblas symbols, so dlib will not use BLAS or LAPACK ***************************************************************************** *** No BLAS library found so using dlib's built in BLAS. However, if you *** *** install an optimized BLAS such as OpenBLAS or the Intel MKL your code *** *** will run faster. On Ubuntu you can install OpenBLAS by executing: *** *** sudo apt-get install libopenblas-dev liblapack-dev *** *** Or you can easily install OpenBLAS from source by downloading the *** *** source tar file from http://www.openblas.net, extracting it, and *** *** running: *** *** make; sudo make install *** ***************************************************************************** Most likely the test is wrong. It is possible that you might need add more '-lxxx' compilation options. rpmlint: dlib.src:90: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 90, tab: line 1) Looks good otherwise. -- Regarding sponsorship: I'd be happy to sponsor you. Can you do two or three reviews of packages from http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html and post the links here? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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