https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823105 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the (In reply to comment #7) > - I see you are still doing a sed-line, which can still break after upstream > changes that file (sed -i -e "5,11d" rebar.config). Done. For the record - that's a workaround for rebar shortcoming. It doesn't check for already installed dependencies. At least it doesn't do it reliably - I'm working on it and I plan to fix it before F-18 release. > - Source0 is still no valid URL, but this is not such a problem since the > github links are very strange. > > - Why don't you use %{name} for the PatchX-lines? So for example: > Patch1: > %{name}-0001-Typo-fix-no-such-function-gen_server-cast-3.patch Done. > - Why do the Requires-lines say you need the specific same arch? Is it > incompatible with the libraries of a different architecture? Yep, this is a quite obscure thing. Erlang is designed that it looks for its libraries in %{_libdir}/erlang/lib (at least by default). This path is definitely arch-dependent so every Erlang package becomes arch-dependent as well even if they contain only arch-independent data (*.beam files and headers). So we forced to apply a policy for arch-dependent packages. > - In %files, you could have removed the %dir > %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/priv/ and remove the asterisk > from the %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/priv/* That's a leftover from my previous experiments with static analysis of Erlang packages. I'd rather keep them as is since I plan to continue these experiments. I'll drop them someday eventually. > APPROVED Many thanks for this! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: erlang-riak_control Short Description: Admin UI for Riak Owners: peter Branches: f17 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review