https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344261 --- Comment #4 from Pete Walter <walter.pete@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3) > Can you put both packages warsow (this bug) and warsaw-data (bug #1344294) > in one spec file? warsaw-data could be a subpackage and is not much useful > for its own alone. We could handle all in one single review. I think two separate packages makes things simpler. They are built from separate tarballs and it makes packaging easier of they are separate SRPMs as well. > Are you interested in a review swap? Maybe with bug #1344115. Sorry, not really interested in wine stuff > > %global warsow_libdir %{_prefix}/lib/warsow > … > > # Filter private libraries from provides > > %global __provides_exclude_from ^%{warsow_libdir}/.*\\.so$ > … > > # Install private libraries to a private directory > > install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{warsow_libdir}/libs > > install -m 755 libs/*.so $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{warsow_libdir}/libs/ > … > %files > %{warsow_libdir}/ > > This does not look right to me. Please explain why this private(?) folder > must be used. You should use %{_libdir}/%{name} instead to also honor 64 > bits with /usr/lib64/warsaw. Private folder is used because it installs private libraries that aren't meant for consumption by other apps. > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/convert > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/desktop-file-install > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/dos2unix > > Better is to use concrete package names: > BuildRequires: ImageMagick > BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils > BuildRequires: dos2unix > > You can verify with dnf whatprovides. I disagree here. Spelling out what executable we need makes packaging much easier to understand. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx