Spec URL: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/uvcdynctrl.spec SRPM URL: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/uvcdynctrl-0.2.0-0.1.svn90.fc13.src.rpm Description: Uvcdynctrl is a command line interface for manipulating settings in UVC-type webcams. It uses the libwebcam library for webcam access. This is my second package up for review. libwebcam[1] being my first. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576023
Ah, I clicked commit too quickly. Had older spec with wrong SVN release convention. Fixed. Spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/uvcdynctrl.spec SRPM: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/uvcdynctrl-0.2.0-0.1.20100322svn.fc13.src.rpm
And... I was missing license files. :( Same spec link. SRPM: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/uvcdynctrl-0.2.0-0.2.20100322svn.fc13.src.rpm
Just what I found looking over it: The release number should be something like 1.20100322svn%{?dist}, if I'm not wrong. You could also add the tar command. Is there a specific reason you use .xz? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Release I don't know if it's useful to have a base package that requires it's own sub-package. There is no package libwebcam-devel, as you state in the BR. Libwebcam seems bundled in the tarball. Libraries should not be bundled. So will most likely have to create two separate packages. Besides that, there are two licenses in the libwebcam sub-directory. Please make sure, which one applies. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries You will also need ldconfig calls when shipping a library. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
Ah, sorry, didn't see the review request for the library.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 576023 ***