https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858419 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2020-07-21 21:03:34 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2) > > Name: libavif > > Version: 0.8.0 > > Release: 1%{?dist} > > Summary: Library for encoding and decoding .avif files > > > License: BSD > > I would indicate which version of the BSD license it is. `fedora-review` > reports BSDv2 mostly. We don't version the BSD license in Fedora. We have that list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses where you can see what shorthand to use for any "good" licence. > > > %files devel > > %doc examples/ > > %{_includedir}/avif > > %{_libdir}/libavif.so > > %{_libdir}/cmake/libavif > > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libavif.pc > > The -devel package should probably include the license as well. The -devel subpackage depends on the main package, therefore it is not needed to reinclude the license. The license must be included once per package combination. > > > %package -n avif-tools > > Summary: Tools to encode and decode AVIF files > > > %description -n avif-tools > > Tools to encode and decode AVIF files. > > > %package -n avif-pixbuf-loader > > Summary: AVIF image loader for GTK+ applications > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gdk-pixbuf-2.0) > > Requires: gdk-pixbuf2 > > Should the sub-packages not explicitly depend on the main package with > %{version} restrictions? > Both packages contain binaries that are linked to libavif versioned library, so it will be autodetected by RPM dependency manager. I could explicitly Requires it if needed. > > %files -n avif-pixbuf-loader > > %license LICENSE > > %{_libdir}/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/*/loaders/libpixbufloader-avif.so > > Should this shared object not be versioned? > No, this is a plugin in a private directory, versioning only applies to libraries in the libdir top level directory. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Package does not use a name that already exists. > Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libavif > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names > > Apparently this is already packaged but I didn't notice it. Sorry. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
