[Bug 1288643] Review Request: dlib - A modern C++ toolkit containing machine learning algorithms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288643



--- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Dmitry Mikhirev from comment #10)
> > The "and Public Domain" part only applies to the examples.
> There are also data files under CC-BY-SA. I added them to -doc package too
> as well as license.
Ack.

> > 1. You should split out a -doc subpackage.
> Should the %doc macro be used in this case? I thought that it is only
> necessary for installing with --excludedocs option, but using it for *-doc
> package is nonsense. However this macro is used in Fedora packages that I
> looked at.

Using %doc still makes sense, because documentation packages are sometimes
pulled in by dependencies (including Recommends). Sometimes -doc packages
might be installed on upgrade, when a -doc subpackages is split out of
the main package. Using %doc even in -doc subpackage makes rpm --excludedocs
work consistently.

> > Most likely the test is wrong.
> No, it is BR that was wrong. I added openblas-devel and removed blas-devel
> and lapack-devel that are linked statically into openblas.
> 
> SRPM URL:
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bizdelnick/neuro/fedora-
> rawhide-x86_64/00149626-dlib/dlib-18.18-1.fc24.src.rpm
> Spec URL:
> http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bizdelnick/neuro/dlib.git/
> plain/dlib.spec?id=be566ba74ab3cd34234bd9935c9cd25f931587f1

Looks good.

rpmlint:

dlib.i686: W: no-documentation
dlib-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
python2-dlib.i686: W: no-documentation
python3-dlib.i686: W: no-documentation
That is OK.

dlib-doc.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/dlib-doc/docs/python/.buildinfo
dlib-doc.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/dlib-doc/docs/python/.doctrees
dlib-doc.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/dlib-doc/docs/python/.doctrees
Yeah, see comment #9. Please fix that up in the initial build.

7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

Package is APPROVED.

(In reply to Dmitry Mikhirev from comment #11)
> A couple of reviews:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279112#c1
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293735#c6

Ack. I've added you to the packagers group. Welcome!
I'm happy to help with any questions or issues you might have.
It would be great if you could now finish those reviews ;)

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]