https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197505 Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.micheal@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.micheal@xxxxxxx> --- > libnfs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib That's some bug in the fedora-review tool. Probably it cannot handle the .so symlink. > libnfs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation It's just a warning, and often those are irrelevant, but the libnfs headers only contain very brief comments, if at all. There is no API documentation. The README points at individual example source files, which are not packaged [yet]. I'm not aware of any packaging guidelines for this scenario. There's only the "should" from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation | Any relevant documentation included in the source distribution should | be included in the package in the proper documentation directory. Source files are not really documentation, but if treating examples as documentation, for libnfs, that could mean anything such as shipping the examples' C sources in -devel %doc (the thing I'd find reasonable) or even creating a GPLv3+ -examples subpackage (that would be overhead IMO). Sure, the src.rpm will be available, too, but referring to the examples without packaging them is a minor flaw. What's your opinion on that? [...] I've checked for conflicts of /usr/bin/nfs-ls, /usr/include/nfsc/ and %_libdir/libnfs.so\* [...] The package passes review. APPROVED Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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