https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #7 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola@xxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #5) > > Which would make sense. Just IMHO, and I recommend that for library-less > > -devel packages so they are like all other -devel packages. However, kindly > > refer to bug 798438 comment 9. The FPC finds it acceptable, if library-less > > development packages (no matter whether they contain only headers or also > > tools) would not be named -devel but used the base package for including > > their files. As such, building just uthash.noarch from uthash.src.rpm would > > be okay, although enough packagers would prefer the uthash-devel.noarch > > style. > > Yes, I've seen this review before packaging uthash. I dislike packages only > named -devel, but no main package existed. Well, the most important thing is that the package that provides the files somehow provides uthash-devel. So either the main package contains the files and Provides: uthash-devel, or the -devel package contains the files and Provides: uthash. In both cases "yum install uthash" works, and so does "yum install uthash-devel". (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4) > (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #3) > > Fails to build in mock > > > perl ./do_tests > > test83 failed > > test84 failed > > 84 tests conducted, 2 failed. > > Hmm... I know this problem as it occured when I first built it. But then > there are no problems, even fedora-review on my host is OK. It would seem that these tests fail because the overhead on x86_64 is different than the one (presumably) on x86, so it's okay to just disable tests 83 and 84. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lWCsXkXAzo&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review