https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@xxxxxxxxx> --- > - Package installs properly. > Note: Installation errors (see attachment) > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines You didn't attach anything and in fact it is installable, you have problems with mock or we have broken rawhide. > - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages See below. > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++ > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 This guidelines changed recently. Now we need to require explicitly. > - Forcing the scripts to use python 2.7 should be conditionalised for > RHEL - no need to do that for Fedora. It is compile-time only. But I agree that this could be fixed. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or > later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 > clause)". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/licensecheck.txt Code which goes to install (linking and whatever) only MIT. > I'm pretty sure the .so's aren't actually devel libs so shouldn't be moved to the devel package, but they do need to be versioned. Not yet. > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. It is using %make_build which effectively does smp_mflags > Is Ajax technically upstream? If not, those patches do need pushing upstream and an appropriate comment added to spec for each patch. Most of all patches made only for compatibility with our guidelines and never will be accepted in upstream as it stays now. (Read as buildsystem changes). Some of patches we are going to send to upstream, but not right now. So after all only python2/python3 question still exists which could be easily fixed and versioning of so-files but I don't think that we need to do it because if understood correctly it is not going via public API so it is okay. I am still insisting that package is totally compatible with guidelines except few points which I mentioned above. -- 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