https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2133
--- Comment #6 from Jeremy Newton <[email protected]> 2012-01-23 21:50:26 CET --- (In reply to comment #5) > (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. > > ... > ...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 Looks good, although you posted the SPEC for 10.1.16-1 instead of 10.1.16-2. Also maybe "Redistributable, no modification permitted" would be a better/clearer license? (as used in numerous packages in rpmfusion non-free use this) I honestly would not know as I am not an official reviewer or sponsor. -- 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.
