https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231
--- Comment #4 from Nils Philippsen <nphil...@redhat.com> --- One thing I didn't notice in my initial review is that the package name lv2-sorcer differs from the tarball name openAV-sorcer which would be more in line with the naming guidelines, cf.: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming Here's the diff to my initial review: ... [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [@]: License field in the package spec file seems to match the actual license, but frankly how it's documented is a mess: spec file: GPLv3+ (LICENSE text: GPLv2) README: "This is released under GPLv3.", but then "you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." faust/main.dsp: GPLv3+ faust/main.cpp: LGPLv2+ gui/avtk: GPLv2+ --> at least the README file shouldn't contradict itself and the license file should be updated to GPLv3 IMO. ... [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. --> Package requires lv2 now. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ... [!]: Package doesn't successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. --> I'll attach the build.log, it seems as if some build requirements are missing (headers, pkgconfig files not found) ... [@]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ... --> Why did you comment out the %global __provides_exclude_from line? ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
