https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353064 --- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the review! I'd be happy to do a swap - let me know which packages you're interested in and I can get started over the weekend. As far as your comments are concerned: I'm pretty sure that the License: tag only covers what's distributed in the RPMs, as stated in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Does_the_License:_tag_cover_the_SRPM_or_the_binary_RPM.3F Thus, it wouldn't be needed for the gtest source. I agree that it might be a good idea to unbundle the gtest source and use the distro version, but gtest is kind of a weird case where upstream doesn't think it should be distributed as a library at all and thus it's not always easy to break it out of project buildsystems. I think the multiple directory ownership in this case is OK, and that it falls under the guideline here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function Specifically, the %{_includedir}/ignition is shared between the ignition packages but those packages do not otherwise need each other. Similarly, %{_libdir}/pkgconfig and %{_libdir}/cmake are owned by pkgconfig and cmake, but ignition-transport-devel doesn't need either of those to function. I don't think the documentation can be generated in parallel with _smp_mflags, but I can add it to try. I will run licensecheck over the source and double-check any files that don't have a header attached. I'm not sure if 2.0 is released yet - it looks more like a development snapshot. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx