Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525927
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Janssen thomasj@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 04:53:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Thanks for the review Kalev.
- The stated license (GPLv2+) is a Fedora approved license
! The license doesn't match actual package license
Every source file contains the following lines:
- Copyright (C) 2006-2007 Marcin Krystian Krzywonos
- License: GNU/GPL version 2
I think this means that the license tag should read 'GPLv2'
Some of the source, like the file 'missing' and 'config.guess' are GPLv2+.
! The following pushd/popd commands in the spec file without anything in between seem useless and should be removed: pushd po popd
Removed.
! You have the following sed command to fix lib64 dir: sed -i 's|/usr/lib|%{_libdir}|' %{name}
I think a proper way to do that is fix script.in instead (that's something you could also send upstream): -exec @MONO@ @prefix@/lib/incollector/incollector.exe $MONO_EXTRA_ARGS "$@" +exec @MONO@ @pkglibdir@/incollector.exe $MONO_EXTRA_ARGS "$@"
Attaching the patch to the bug report in a separate file too.
Thanks for the patch. It's not a blocker to use sed, though i changed it to use patch since there was already a patch, for consistency.
! Consider removing %{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.ico at the end of %install. I very much doubt anything uses .ico files in Fedora when there's a matching .png file in %{_datadir}/pixmaps/.
The ico is used inside the app it seems. Removing it breaks the compiling. I dont want to patch the software to make it use a png.
Spec URL: http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/incollector.spec SRPM URL: http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/incollector-1.2-2.fc11.src.rpm
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1845565