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=470913 Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bugs.michael@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> 2008-12-17 07:40:57 EDT --- In bug 232465 comment 2 I pointed out that the package is dual-licenced: API header is LGPLv2+, data file is MIT. => License: LGPLv2+ and MIT Authors's COPYING file says "BSD-style", but the licence text matches this: http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php It is not clear to me why neither the LV2 bundledir ( %{_libdir}/lv2 ) nor the bundle name ( lv2core.lv2 ) are defined anywhere in the lv2.h file. That means applications would need to define it themselves. Hopefully they get it right and agree on a standard path. Home page lists a rev3 (2008-11-08) with a comment in the ChangeLog that says "unstable". Can't find any such classification of rev2. > %files > %doc AUTHORS COPYING README > %defattr(-,root,root,-) I suggest moving the %defattr one line up. Actually rpmlint reports this, too. > Summary: An Audio Plugin Standard I would drop the "An ". ;) Starting the %description with the following sentence from the home page would be an improvement: LV2 is a standard for plugins and matching host applications, mainly targeted at audio processing and generation. With those changes, which can be applied in pkg cvs, it's fine packaging-wise: APPROVED -- 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