https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270358 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- rpmlint | grep -v devel-file-in-non-devel-package: nacl-newlib.src: W: invalid-url Source1: nacl-headers-43.0.2357.81.tar.bz2 nacl-newlib.src: W: invalid-url Source0: nacl-newlib-2.1.0-git8c4da47.tar.bz2 nacl-newlib.x86_64: W: no-documentation nacl-newlib.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86_64-nacl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 124 warnings. Looks OK. Maybe I'm missing something, but why don't you use a direct URL for sources: %global commit 784956835fd318fa64e513ead7774d897386a7be %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) Source0: https://chromium.googlesource.com/native_client/nacl-newlib/+archive/%{commit}.tar.gz#/nacl-newlib-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz Now I see that this would only work for Source0, and not other Sources. Too bad. Have you though about putting the chromium tarball as Source1 and doing the extraction of the missing header files in %prep? Seems like that would be easier to automate, and that tarball will be in dist-git cache anyway. Some of the header files are "BSD with advertising". Shouldn't this be included in License tag? /usr/x86_64-nacl/include/grp.h: BSD (4 clause) /usr/x86_64-nacl/include/pwd.h: BSD (4 clause) /usr/x86_64-nacl/include/ar.h: BSD (4 clause) /usr/x86_64-nacl/include/unctrl.h: BSD (4 clause) /usr/x86_64-nacl/include/ar.h: BSD (4 clause) /usr/x86_64-nacl/include/grp.h: BSD (4 clause) /usr/x86_64-nacl/include/pwd.h: BSD (4 clause) /usr/x86_64-nacl/include/sys/syslimits.h: BSD (4 clause) /usr/x86_64-nacl/include/sys/syslimits.h: BSD (4 clause) /usr/x86_64-nacl/include/unctrl.h: BSD (4 clause) + license is OK - License files are missing. Doesn't matter too much for the BSD-licensed stuff, but for LGPL it would be nice to add the license file. + rpmlint has nothing useful to say + no file conflicts + no scriptlets present or necessary + builds and installs OK, nacl-gcc builds fine with it + provides/requires look sane I'll go ahead with the approval. There are some cleanups which could be done, but the only really important parts are that a) it doesn't break other things, b) it works for the purpose of building nacl-gcc and other dependent packages. Package is APPROVED. -- 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