https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161014 Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jv+fedora@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you very much for looking at the package. (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #5) > - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > > ---> python-devel -> python2-devel > > 191 BuildRequires: python-devel Ok, good catch but actually lldb is not built in the llvm34 package currently. I think I will just remove clang, and the rest of the conditional parts completely for clarity and simplicity. (Diffing with f21 llvm.spec might give you a better idea of the changes I have made.) > [?]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. I think this is okay. The same libraries are in the current llvm package. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/llvm34 I am confused: here /usr/lib64/llvm34 is owned by llvm34-libs. > ---> The specfile has this - > > 546 %dir %{_datadir}/llvm > > Shouldn't this be llvm34? : > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/llvm/cmake(llvm- > devel), /usr/share/llvm(llvm) Yes, fixing. > [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > > ---> Spec file has this line - > > 354 --with-optimize-option=-O3 > Is this necessary? This came from llvm.spec - dunno if it is related to mesa or something. Apparently it was added in this commit http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/llvm.git/commit/?id=be655c46e5d3707531fb8bef5430a9c064653197 without comment. We could drop it perhaps dunno or add a comment that it comes from llvm.spec. > [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed > > ---> Spec files could be cleaned up a bit. Not a big issue though. Again inherited from llvm.spec. I agree probably better to clean up the file more for readibility: dropping. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in llvm34-doc > , llvm34-libs , llvm34-static > > ---> Shouldn't -libs subpackage have versions dep? Probably not. llvm34 has a versioned requires on llvm34-libs. > llvm34.src:291: W: configure-without-libdir-spec > llvm34.src:291: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib I think these are falsely triggered by the sed on "./configure". I will try removing the "./" for the former. > llvm34.src:353: E: hardcoded-library-path in > %{_prefix}/lib/gcc/%{_target_cpu}*/*/include) Well that is for gcc, again from llvm.spec. Dunno if there is a nicer way to get that gcc path. > llvm34.src:593: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/clang > > ---> /lib --> %{_libdir}? clang is not packaged. Dropping. -- 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