Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
--- Comment #14 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
Thank you spot for the prompt analysis. It looks like either option will
require coding and work upstream. Since this library is mainly designed to
support xbmc, let's move
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
--- Comment #15 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
Thank you Tom, thank you Ken.
Opened bug 2631 [1] on rpm fusion bugzilla.
[1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2631
--
You are receiving this mail
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
--- Comment #11 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
Hi Ken,
thank you.
The first thing is that rpmlint caught an unnecessary link in
libshairport.so.2.0.0.
I have included your patch in the package and proposed
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
--- Comment #9 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
Created attachment 670170
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=670170action=edit
patch to remove libssl link
Hi Lorenzo,
Good job on your package. I noticed
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
Group: Development/Libraries
It's possible to omit the Group tag, but if it's filled in, base libraries
enter group System Environment/Libraries. Only the
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
---
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
Re: comment 1
Good suggestions.
With regard to the license, this one is important:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
--- Comment #4 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #1)
- I have some dubious about its license; it seems a MIT
License has been corrected to MIT.
- Source0 should indicate an entire link to
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
--- Comment #5 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I'll be sponsoring Lorenzo since this is a dependency for another package I
maintain (xbmc).
Thank You Ken!
--
You are receiving this
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
Well, your current %description doesn't tell what libshairport is and what it
_does_. It gives a history lesson ;), but instead it ought to _expand_ on the
%summary and
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
--- Comment #7 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Well, your current %description doesn't tell what libshairport is and what
it _does_. It gives a history lesson ;), but instead it ought to
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888224
Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|
18 matches
Mail list logo
