https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103420 --- Comment #15 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #14) > pythonX-devel files are used for testing Okay, thank you for the clarification. > This has been an explicit request in the previous review: > > >> When thiking about the pkg's Requires and the intended functionality, I'm > >> *strongly* tending to the conclusion, this *MUST* be arch'ed and needs to >> have %{?_isa}-Requires… I understand that. But if that reasoning is correct (and I don't think it is), then this package is still inadequate for a couple of reasons: - python2-devel and python3-devel are multi-arch, but this package Requires: pythonX-devel, not pythonX%{?_isa}-devel - If the intention is to make this package multi-arch, you've got a problem. Both the i386 and x86_64 builds install into %{pythonX_sitelib} (i.e., /usr/lib). The *.py files are identical, but due to timestamps, the .pyc and .pyo files are not, so the two packages conflict. If the intention is to NOT make this package multi-arch, then there is no point in making it arch-ful either, as only the native architecture version will be available. But I think the reasoning behind making this package arch-ful in the first place is flawed. This package is a code generator. It is going to generate the same code regardless of which architecture it runs on. *Something else* then consumes that code. In order for the code to compile, the something else needs boost-devel, and maybe pythonX-devel. That something else has to be arch-ful. Summary: I think this package should be noarch, and should only Requires: Cython (which it needs to run). It's up to whatever consumes the code that is produced by autowrap to BuildRequires: boost-devel (and maybe pythonX-devel), which will automatically make the arch correct. > > 4. I question the usefulness of including CONCEPT and README_DEVELOP in %doc. > > Those do not seem to provide any information that users of this package > > will need. > > Well, they are informations however on software development. Yes, they contain information on developing autowrap, but no information on developing other software *with* autowrap. The latter is useful documentation; the former is not. For example, here are the contents of README_DEVELOP: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To run the tests run nose as follows $ nosetests -w tests from the projects directory ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Users of autowrap do not want to run the nose tests. Developers of autowrap do. Similarly, CONCEPT contains information on how autowrap does its work internally. This is not useful information for users of autowrap; it is useful information for developers of autowrap. The information in %doc should be useful for the users of a package. Developers will download the sources anyway, so they will get this information in any case. -- 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