https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381
--- Comment #11 from Clément DAVID c.david86@gmail.com --- Hi gil, thanks for taking the review,
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package doc
Fixed to avoid outdated javadoc / doc documentation on update.
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. Note: Cannot find licenses in rpm(s)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames
I checked the licenses, the LICENSE.txt file is provided on each package and document licenses usages. I updated the spec to list them all.
[!]: Dist tag is present.
I did not understand this point, I used the {?dist} macro on the release field.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (jogl-v2.0-rc10.tar.7z)
I prefer keeping the same source package as upstream. The package name has been changed to provide both jogl and jogl2 on the same system.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define pkg_release 0.%{baserelease}.%{pkg_rc}%{?dist} %define pkg_release %{baserelease}%{?dist} should be simply %global pkg_release 0.%{baserelease}.%{pkg_rc}%{?dist}
Fixed.
please, can you check,also, if in gluegen2 package is present gluegen.cpptasks.detect.os
Yes /usr/share/gluegen2/make/gluegen-cpptasks-base.xml:700
Please note that for these minor spec modification I did not bump the version.