https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712980 Marc-Andre Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(quantum.analyst@g | |mail.com) --- Comment #4 from Marc-Andre Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #3) > - As noted, you should specify an explicit soversion in %files. changed to %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.0* > - For a multi-license package, the breakdown should be specified in a comment > in the spec. Like many other projects, libslirp has a main license, BSD-3. But MIT is quite prominent too. If you look into details, you have to go in the source code. I added SPDX tags on each files. How would you break things down in the spec? > - You don't need Requires on pkgconfig or glib-devel as they are > automatically > added by the .pc file. What magic does that? any pointer to doc? > - Are there any tests that could be run in %check? Sadly, not at this point. thanks for the review and your help! -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
