Spec URL: http://mbriza.fedorapeople.org/copr/unstable/qauth.spec SRPM URL: http://mbriza.fedorapeople.org/copr/unstable/qauth-0.1.1-2.fc20.src.rpm Description: Qt user authentication library Fedora Account System Username: mbriza
The submitter is not supposed to touch the fedora-review flag (not even to set it to "?").
Only a brief look at the spec: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries > %files devel > %{_includedir}/QAuth/* * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
naming: ok I question the value of a -helpers subpkg, only value is saving ~100k in the multilib case (e.g. avoids an extra 100k of i686 binary on x86_64 systems, but they payload doesn't land on disk due to arch coloring anyway) As mentioned in comment #2 1. subpkgs MUST Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} 2. %{_libdir}/libqauth.so MUST be owned by -devel subpkg, I'd suggest (main) %{_libdir}/libqauth.so.0* and -devel %{_libdir}/libqauth.so 3. -devel subpkg MUST own %{_includedir}/QAuth , I'd suggest switching %{_includedir}/QAuth/* to %{_includedir}/QAuth/ 4. %%description currently mentions Qt5, but no qt5 support is currently included. I'd suggest leaving versions out, use something like %description QAuth is a Qt user authentication library... instead (to be version agnostic). 5. licensing mostly ok, but SHOULD make it clearer if possible. Afaict, the library itself is LGPLv2+, and the helper portion is GPLv2+, is that correct? If so, please clarify that in a .spec comment near the License: tag 6. SHOULD document need for Requires: xorg-x11-xinit
Hi, closing the review. QAuth has been merged directly into SDDM source tree, so no separate package will be needed. Thank you for the review, I'll take it in mind when modifying sddm.spec on update.
clearing flags