https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #28 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny(a)redhat.com> ---
Looking at
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.0-3
1. I don't see any change about the clumsy conditionals
(is it what was meant with "I left the original"?)
2. you are right that source files appear dual-licensed, but as
mentioned, the License tag describes license of shipped artifacts
(built executables, libraries, etc.) not of the source files,
and that seems refined with README.license file making it clear
under which terms are which artefacts expected to be distributed
(binary RPMs are a form of distribution); I think particular
License tags should reflect that -- perhaps best checked with
upstream
3. it's customary to specify BuildRequires dependencies that are
sourced by using pkg-config utility (*.pc files, here through
PKG_CHECK_MODULES() macro in configure.ac file) as
pkgconfig(foo) -- guidelines state it as SHOULD item:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires
- for a start:
libqb-devel -> pkgconfig(libqb)
xz-devel -> pkgconfig(liblzma)
zlib-devel -> pkgconfig(zlib)
- also, this is likely the first time I've seen dependency on
*-devel packages expressed via direct header file dependency,
though configure script also asks for pkg-config module
explicitly at least in some instances, hence I suggest:
/usr/include/bzlib.h -> pkgconfig(bzip2)
/usr/include/lz4hc.h -> pkgconfig(liblz4)
/usr/include/nss3/nss.h -> pkgconfig(nss)
/usr/include/openssl/conf.h -> pkgconfig(openssl)
4. what's the purpose of fiddling with debug packages that has been
added since last time? it's likely inappropriate here
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component