Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lv2core - An Audio Plugin Standard https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=232465 ------- Additional Comments From green@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-21 18:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Builds OK; here's some rpmlint output: > > lv2core.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL2.1+ > Valid tags are at http://fedoraproject.org/Licensing; should be LGPLv2+. Ok. > > lv2core.x86_64: E: no-binary > lv2core.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > lv2core-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package > Comment #1 mentioned that this package should be noarch; is there some reason > why it needs to be arch-specific? I can't find any reason why it would. It's conceivable that the .pc file could be different for different architectures. > lv2core-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > This is OK. > > I'm afraid I don't know what a .ttl file is, but just to be sure: can you > confirm that the two ttl files are needed at runtime and not just during > compilation? I'm trying to determine whether or not they need to live in the > -devel package (which would sort of make the whole thing a -devel package, I guess). They are used at runtime by lv2 hosts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review