https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259486 --- Comment #12 from leigh scott <leigh123linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #11) > libglvnd.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion xorg-x11-glvnd < 0.1.0 obsoletes > xorg-x11-glvnd = 0.0.0-8 > > This looks wrong. I guess that the goal is for this package to be a > replacement for xorg-x11-glvnd. Following > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming. > 2FReplacing_Existing_Packages, this should look like: > > Provides: xorg-x11-glvnd = %{version}-%{release} > Obsoletes: xorg-x11-glvnd < 0.1.0 > > > The pkg-config file looks bogus: Libs line is empty, Version is wrong. You > might want to bug upstream about that. > > > %license does not need LGPLv2, afaict. The %license tag applies to the > binary rpm, and the parts under GPL are build system components, irrelevant > to the licensing of the binary rpm > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/ > FAQ#Does_the_License:_tag_cover_the_SRPM_or_the_binary_RPM.3F]. > > Looks good otherwise. It looks like kwizart updated the spec and srpm in comment #10 # Introduced in f23 Provides: xorg-x11-glvnd = 0.0.0-8 Obsoletes: xorg-x11-glvnd < 0.1.0 Can you proceed with the review please? -- 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