https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #6 from Phil Wyett philip.wyett@kathenas.org --- <snip>
Comments: a) FSF errors are fine, it uses LGPL2 and the license text on the FSF website has the old address https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html The text of the license file should not be changed, please modify issue to indicate the text should be the same as on the FSF website.
Added info to the upstream bug reports. Had no contact as yet.
b) Most of the files seem to be under LGPL2. CAn this be added to the spec, as well as a license breakdown? GPL licenses seem to only be used in CMake files which are not packaged.
This was an error on my part. Now just LGPL2.
c) Is it possible to test that the library works by using one/some of the examples?
Examples are fixed nd now included in the -devel package.
d) May consider putting cmake files in /usr/share/cmake/bcunit or /usr/lib64/cmake/bcunit
cmake files are now located under: /usr/lib64/cmake/BCunit.
Have not corrected folder naming. Will look to get upstream to change it rather than patch for it.
e) Can you raise an issue upstream about soname? If they will not use one, it should start with 0, otherwise perhaps upstream will use a soname that matches the release number https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ #_downstream_so_name_versioning
I will upstream issue this, but have added a note in spec file why it is '1' currently.
f) Why are header files packaged in the documentation?
The header files of that location (now in -devel) package are linked to within the html documentation files.
g) %ldconfig_scriptlets is typically not needed in the spec file, it will run automatically
Removed.
Notes:
Reworked and patched FTBFS problems ad others. Dropped not needed and painful -doc package.
Regards
Phil