https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2133
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com> 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.