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=620177 --- Comment #2 from Adel Gadllah <adel.gadl...@gmail.com> 2010-08-02 12:37:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Taking for review. Thanks! > > License: GPLv2+ > How did you determine that it is GPLv2+? uprof.c, uprof.h, and uprof-private.h > all have LGPLv2+ headers and there's an LGPL COPYING file too. D'oh .. your right it is indeed LGPLv2+ > > find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.a' -exec rm -f {} ';' > It'd be nicer to pass --disable-static to configure so that the .a files don't > get built in the first place. Well yeah, but as the current build system is broken I'd had to patch it for "--disable-static" to work; and I'd rather avoid non upstream patches unless when possible. > > BuildRequires: gtk-doc > > BuildRequires: gnome-doc-utils > Are these buildrequires necessary? There doesn't appear to be anything built > with gtk-doc in the final rpms. Missing configure switch; docs are now being built. (it complains about missing gtk-doc even when no docs are being built). > The COPYING file is included in both base package and in the -devel > subpackage. > As per > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing > you can omit the COPYING file in -devel as it's dependant upon the base > package. Good point. New spec / srpm : http://193.200.113.196/apache2-default/rpm/uprof.spec http://193.200.113.196/apache2-default/rpm/uprof-0.2-0.2.b620fb7f9.fc13.src.rpm -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
