Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474908 --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-10 15:35:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > ? I didn't find any occurrences of the clauses "GPL" or "Artistic" or "licensed > under the same terms as perl itself." among the perl files. Is there a rule > that any perl program has to be released under "GPL+ or Artistic"? I would also > like to remind you that there is a .so file in the perl package that links > against the libraries in the main package. >From COPYING: src/clients/lib/perl/: Copyright (C) 2006-2007 Florian Ragwitz <rafl@xxxxxxxxxx> Licensed under the same terms as Perl itself. License attribution also shows up in the .xs files in src/clients/lib/perl/ > - TODO file can be included in %doc Good point. > ? Is the doxygen documentation useless? Nope. I've added a -docs subpackage for all 6.4 MB of it. > ? What package(s) own the > %{perl_archlib}/Audio/ > %{perl_archlib}/auto/Audio/ > directories? Are they among the dependencies? Multiple ownership for perl directories is acceptable. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership Since nothing in this depends on any other perl module which may own %{perl_archlib}/Audio/ or %{perl_archlib}/auto/Audio/, it is acceptable for this package to own it. > ? Some files in the wafadmin directory have /usr/local/ /usr/lib/ directories > hardcoded. Will these have any effect on the application? Not in my testing on x86_64, no. The /usr/local instances are being overridden, but it can't hurt to sed replace libdir, so I've done that. > ? There are no .desktop files but why are there pixmaps? They're provided in case third party clients want to use "approved" images. > * The devel package has .pc files, hence we must require pkgconfig. Fixed. > * Please add the -v flag to the waf script so we can see what it is actually > doing. When I did this, I found that the fedora specific compiler flag -O2 is > being overwritten. This needs fixed. Good point. Added -v to build, added a patch to disable the extra -O0 that was being appended to CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS. > ? The following provides seemed weird to me: > $ rpm -qp --provides xmms2-devel-0.5-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm > (git > DrLecter > b63ec5a270cfde0ae3d59c9b89d860b8650e430f-dirty) > commit: > pkgconfig(xmms2-client) = 0.5 > pkgconfig(xmms2-client-cpp) = 0.5 > pkgconfig(xmms2-client-cpp-glib) = 0.5 > pkgconfig(xmms2-client-ecore) = 0.5 > pkgconfig(xmms2-client-glib) = 0.5 > pkgconfig(xmms2-plugin) = 0.5 > xmms2-devel = 0.5-1.fc10 > xmms2-devel(x86-64) = 0.5-1.fc10 > What is that git parenthesis about? Is that normal? Hmm. It looks like it is getting implanted into one of the .pc files, then rpm is scraping it out as a Provides for some reason. Easy enough to fix the wscript to have a little versioning sanity. > * The devel package must require glib2-devel, qt-devel, boost-devel at the > least (but I think this is all). Added. > * Double BR: libmodplug-devel Fixed. > * Unnecessary BRs: libcurl-devel (picked up by ecore-devel), glib2-devel > (picked up by avahi-glib-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel...), libogg-devel, > libvorbis-devel (both picked up by libshout-devel), python-devel (picked up by > Pyrex) Fixed. Okay, here is the new SPRM and SPEC: New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/xmms2-0.5-2.fc11.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/xmms2.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review