https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302909 Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Shawn Iwinski from comment #13) > Spec URL: > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/siwinski/rpms/ > 0f6e8cf814b7dc5205694f88071b91d71735a616/drupal8/drupal8.spec > > SRPM URL: > https://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/drupal8-8.1.8-2.fc24.src.rpm Thanks for turning this around so quickly :-) > Should I add the license breakdown to %description as well? Personally, I > think that would be useful to end-users but I don't remember seeing any > other pkg do that. No, I think it's obvious enough where it is in the specfile. > See inline notes below. Overall, IMO they are to remain upstream managed > and replaced on RPM update. I will make note of these in a RPM README that > I still need to create. > See comment from Remi. We have been using this in several PHP libraries > already to allow for SCL. Fair enough. I'm willing to ignore the error from rpmlint. > These annoy me :/ How are these permissions non-standard? I will > eventually ask on the packaging mailing list. Good point -- now that I look at it closer, they look OK to me, as long as you really do want the group to be able to have write permissions on the files. Go ahead and ask on the packaging list, but I'll waive these for now in the interest of moving the package review further along. > > drupal8.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency php-zlib > > Common rpmlint "error" for php extension pkg Yes, I'm not worried about this one. > > drupal8.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /etc/drupal8/sites/default/files > > /var/lib/drupal8/files/public/default > > This one should make sense :) Yeah, same here. Known false positive from rpmlint. > > drupal8-httpd.noarch: W: no-documentation > > Documentation is provided by the main drupal8 pkg which is a requirement of > this drupal8-httpd subpackage. > > > drupal8-rpmbuild.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > drupal8-rpmbuild.noarch: W: no-documentation > > I will create a README at the same time I create an RPM README. Sounds great. Assuming you add the README before you commit, and given the fact that everything else looks to be in order, I'm going to go ahead and approve the package. Thanks again for packaging this. -- 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