https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2133
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Dieter <[email protected]> 2012-01-23 19:11:54 CET --- (In reply to comment #4) > Few quick things I noticed while skimming through your SPEC: > > *It seems a little redundant to do prep on both sources, if only one is > required, it seems unnecessary. I'm not sure how one should handle this but it > did strike me as odd when I saw it. Yeah, good catch. I've fixed it to prep only the necessary source. > *You have not included documentation in your package. At a quick glance of the > source, I have noticed there is license files and a readme in the tar's. All > of > these are documentation and should be included, no? Yes, again you're right. I assumed that, because it's a proprietary closed-source package, it wouldn't include any documentation. I've fixed the package to include the documentation. > *You haven't given any reason for ignoring the warnings you did. It makes it a > little difficult to review a package with warnings that has no explanation of > such warnings being ignored. Only the warning of lack of documentation is what > I would think needs explaining, but definitely something to note next time to > avoid things from being unclear to the reviewers. Ok, "invalid-license" is because it's not an open-source license. Not sure if Ralf was looking for clarification in comment #2 or whether the license tag should actually read "Proprietary, closed source". The "no-%build-section" is because there is nothing to build. The "shared-lib-calls-exit" isn't something we can work around given that the library is closed-source. And I've fixed the "no-documentation" bug. Updated package: Spec URL: http://www.lesbg.com/jdieter/libspotify.spec SRPM URL: http://www.lesbg.com/jdieter/libspotify-10.1.16-2.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
