https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 --- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- If you posted up-to-date "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" lines, it would become much more obvious what the latest files to review are, and the fedora-review tool would have an easy job fetching the latest packages, too: fedora-review -b 1057874 [...] https://domsch.com/linux/fedora/libspf/libspf2-1.2.10-3.gitd57d79fd.fc21.src.rpm This does not follow the snapshot versioning guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Version_and_Release -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages > %if %{compat} > Provides: libspf2 = %{version}-%{release} > %endif Quite useless, if there is no %?_isa Provides as to complement the two automatic Proides for %name and %name%{?_isa}. > There are no static libraries included in the -devel package. Then the %description should not mention "static libraries". > We do not need to add %{?_isa} to other subpackage Requires, We do: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package It's the same explicit Requires as in -devel packages (to keep subpackages in sync with eachother as to avoid surprising developers when releasing bug-fix updates of libraries - we want them to get a matching pair of packages). It's the only way to have strict dependencies between subpackages and library base packages. Unless library symbol versioning is used. One major flaw with that is, in external packages we rely on the automatic soname deps to pull in _any_ package that provides the needed lib: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires It's up to the maintainers to add explicit Requires, if it must be a specific version-release of the lib for something to work correctly. > they will be handled automatically by rpmbuild. Arch-specific versioned explicit Requires are more strict than a basic SONAME dependency. Also note that there's an automatic lib dependency between -devel package and base lib package based on the soname. It's just not strict enough (wrt %release). > %install > %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > %files > %doc README INSTALL LICENSES TODO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > %files devel > %{_includedir}/spf2/spf*.h https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership > %defattr(-,root,root,-) %defattr is not needed anymore for any of the target dists: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions -- 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