https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103 --- Comment #28 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Looking at https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.0-3 1. I don't see any change about the clumsy conditionals (is it what was meant with "I left the original"?) 2. you are right that source files appear dual-licensed, but as mentioned, the License tag describes license of shipped artifacts (built executables, libraries, etc.) not of the source files, and that seems refined with README.license file making it clear under which terms are which artefacts expected to be distributed (binary RPMs are a form of distribution); I think particular License tags should reflect that -- perhaps best checked with upstream 3. it's customary to specify BuildRequires dependencies that are sourced by using pkg-config utility (*.pc files, here through PKG_CHECK_MODULES() macro in configure.ac file) as pkgconfig(foo) -- guidelines state it as SHOULD item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires - for a start: libqb-devel -> pkgconfig(libqb) xz-devel -> pkgconfig(liblzma) zlib-devel -> pkgconfig(zlib) - also, this is likely the first time I've seen dependency on *-devel packages expressed via direct header file dependency, though configure script also asks for pkg-config module explicitly at least in some instances, hence I suggest: /usr/include/bzlib.h -> pkgconfig(bzip2) /usr/include/lz4hc.h -> pkgconfig(liblz4) /usr/include/nss3/nss.h -> pkgconfig(nss) /usr/include/openssl/conf.h -> pkgconfig(openssl) 4. what's the purpose of fiddling with debug packages that has been added since last time? it's likely inappropriate here -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
