https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375765 Eric Smith <spacewar@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(spacewar@xxxxxxxx | |m) | --- Comment #5 from Eric Smith <spacewar@xxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys-0.6.0-2.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc24.src.rpm Note that no action was taken for the following: * bundled viz.js - The file viz.js isn't bundled into the generated RPMs, so the bundling policy, which is based primarily on security concerns, is not applicable. In particular, following the bundling policy would require a "Provides: bundled(viz.js)=0.0.3", but that would clearly be wrong, as the package doesn't provide it. * /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.py - Not moved. There is considerable precedent for application-specific Python files to be in /usr/share/%{name}, e.g., firewalld, hplip, qtcreator, setroubleshoot, virt-manager, etc. I've reviewed FHS 3.0 and am not convinced that having application-specific Python files in /usr/share/%{name} actually contravenes any FHS 3.0 requirement. * tarball without URL - No actual problem. Perhaps was triggered by outdated URL for Debian pool. * %check tests directory - No actual problem. Tests are present and are correctly tested in %check section. These requested changes have been made: * license tag - Changed to include additional licenses. * changelog format - Changed to include review bug number. * /usr/bin/abc - Changed to use %{_bindir}. * /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.p - Had previously marked executable to fix rpmlint error. Removed the chmod, so now rpmlint reports that error. Which is better, having the rpmlint error, or having the file unnecessarily marked as executable? Since it contains no main program, I felt that having it marked executable was inconsequential. * source tag - Debian - URL updated. Note, Debian pool changes often, deletes older versions of their patches. URL was correct when original review was submitted. * license texts - Requested upstream, https://github.com/cliffordwolf/yosys/issues/263, comment added to files section in spec. * versioned dependency in subpackages: - Subpackage doc dependency on main package *removed*, as docs can stand alone. - Subpackage devel dependency on main package made arch-specific. * /usr/share/yosys is architecture-independent: - Moved /usr/share/yosys to noarch subpackage. - Main package made dependent on -share subpackage. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx