https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #3) > It is not just inconvenient to hardcode such a dependency in a Documentation > package, so the package cannot be installed without pulling in lots of > dependencies. Please keep doc packages free of such deps unless the base app > is strictly required to display the doc files. Okay, I have removed this dependency. > Here %{?_isa} would make sense. The generated .config file (_not_ in libpuma > package btw) seems arch-specific, subpackage "-aspectc++" (which is not > multi-lib) requires arch-specific libpuma, so libpuma ought to require the > arch-specific compiler, too. No, see bug 831383. I have instead added arch-specific dependencies on libstdc++-devel and glibc-devel. (The dependency on libgcc isn't needed, because that comes via libstdc++-devel -> libstdc++ -> libgcc.) The generated puma.config file is a bit more problematic. You are correct that it should be in the main package rather than in the aspectc++ subpackage. But that breaks multilib, since the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of that file will differ. I don't think that file should be in %{_sysconfdir} anyway. It isn't intended to be edited by humans. I have moved it to %{_libdir}/libpuma instead, which will work with multilib. Does that sound reasonable? > Nasty trap. ;) > > Seeing this I wondered about the license file, and indeed you modify the > license file which must not be done: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address I've had reviewers of other packages insist that I fix the address, so this was a preemptive strike to avoid taking flak from the reviewer of this package. That didn't work out so well. :-) I'm going to remove the address changing code, and just complain to upstream about it. It looks like upstream is currently recovering from some kind of website breakage, and their bugzilla is offline. It may take a few days to alert them to the problem. Thanks for the feedback! New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libpuma/libpuma.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libpuma/libpuma-1.2-2.fc22.src.rpm -- 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