https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325378 --- Comment #9 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> --- I've removed the static libs as part of the %prep stage (they weren't being used as part of the compile process anyway but this way we can be sure of that). I've removed the gmp.h header; spasm links against a system-wide gmp instead so it doesn't really need that header file anyway. The stringencoders sources... sigh. I managed to not notice those initially, my bad. I think I am going to eventually have a go at properly unbundling this and packaging stringencoders separately. For now, though... stringencoders does not seem to actually believe in release versions that aren't just a date; if you look at the changelog here, for instance: https://github.com/client9/stringencoders/blob/master/ChangeLog. The sources were added to spasm (pre-spasm-ng fork) on 8/20/2011; https://wabbit.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/69815. My best guess at a version, then, would be "19-Mar-2010". Should I stylize this as 2010.03.19, should I use the date the files were added (2011.08.20), or do something different? (For now, I've used 2011.08.20, since that would be the date the files were pulled). I have opened an issue upstream asking for license clarification / license headers. https://github.com/alberthdev/spasm-ng/issues/37. And I have removed the rm -rf %{buildroot}. Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng-0.5-0.4.beta.2.fc24.src.rpm -- 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