https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366784 Jan Včelák <jv+fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #3 from Jan Včelák <jv+fedora@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks, Jaroslav. > Issues: > ======= > - List all deps in BuildRequires > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2 What exactly is missing? The package doesn't depend on any library. > - It's library and ldconfig is not called in %post and %postun > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries Fixed. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". > 20 files have unknown license. > > According to the comments it seems docs contains MIT, BSD, GPL, GPLv2 > licensed content. I think the doc subpackage needs to have license tag "BSD > and GPL", or simply GPL (by utilizing license compatibility). Nice catch. I found out that the documentation has a separate LICENSE file is FBSDDL. In updated spec, the main package is BSD and the doc subpackage is FBSDDL and BSD and GPL. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > License file is not installed if only doc subpackage is installed. Fixed by adding the FBSDDL license file. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > mpdecimal-doc , mpdecimal-debuginfo > > I think the doc subpackage should require the base package, this will also > resolve the problem with the license file installation. I would like to keep the packages independent. It's just documentation. You don't need the library or headers to read it. > Rpmlint > ------- > mpdecimal.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin > /usr/lib64/libmpdec.so.2.4.2 > mpdecimal.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun Resolved. I've also added the bundled(js-*) provides for the doc subpackage. Unversioned though, hope that's OK. I think it would be needless effort to make sure the versions didn't change during the update. % rpmlint ./*.spec ./mpdecimal.spec:36: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-jquery) ./mpdecimal.spec:37: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-underscore) ./mpdecimal.spec:38: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-sizzle) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. (I also want to make it for EPEL 7. It won't build yet. But I think I can fix that on-the-fly.) Update SPEC: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/mpdecimal/2.4.2-3/mpdecimal.spec Updated SRPM: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/mpdecimal/mpdecimal-2.4.2-3.fc26.src.rpm Fresh build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jvcelak/mpdecimal/build/443478/ -- 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