https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #17 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Kaleb KEITHLEY from comment #16) > > Build issue aside, I find it hard to justify how including this library > > doesn't violate https://fedoraproject.org > > /wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries. You said that "it'll be split out when > ready", but actually is seems to be > > a totally separate project. I'd approve the package as is, otherwise. > > Well, then we need an exception I guess. A) It's not really bundled, or I > don't understand your definition of bundled. It's a static lib used during > the build, not installed or even in the RPM, It is bundled, in the sense that this project A contains a snapshot of project B as part of it's sources. So if B makes a new release independently from A, than our compiled A will be stuck with the old version. > B) Upstream isn't ready to > package it separately because they haven't settled on the final APIs and at > the present time they are the only consumer of it. Its git repo is, at > present, still a part of the nfs-ganesha project on github. OK, this is the crucial information I was missing. This information was obscured by the Source1 link not being a link to upstream. In this case bundling them could be OK, if it was really one project in two tarballs. But I don't think that's really the case. Even if nfs-ganesha is the new upstream for libntirpc, libntirpc has been packaged for redhat and other distributions. So we have a situation where it was a seperate project, is packaged separately, and is intended to be separate in the future, so it's very hard to argue that it is part of the nfs server. If can apply for an exception, but I think it's unlikely to pass. And I'm *quite* sure that making a second package will be faster than waiting for Fesco. > And C) if the > license was incompatible I could definitely understand it, but since it's > BSD then I don't see the license as an issue. > > nfs-ganesha.src:62: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep %cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Maintainer -DBUILD_CONFIG=everything -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{buildroot}/usr ./src > > Yeah, %cmake step should be moved to %build. > > > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0 > > Directory ownership is missing. > > Not sure what the fix is for this. I made a WAG. Hm, I'm not sure what a WAG is, but it should be enough to just add '%dir /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0/' to '%files docs'. I see that I missed one more thing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs. Basically, if you use %{_pkgdocdir} as the documentation directory, things should work in F >= 19. I'm not sure though how this macro will work out with the single docs directory, you might have to adjust to keep -docs docs in the same directory as main package docs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review