https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #35 from Pete Walter <walter.pete@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #33) > More inline comments: > > (In reply to Pete Walter from comment #31) > > This is not needed these days. gtk3 includes a file trigger that does it > > automatically. > > Are you not including epel packages? Firefox and chromium should be provided > for all branches. I wasn't planning on, but maybe I should. :) I'll add them when I do, thanks! > > Sorry, the suggested chrome and chromium directory changes are wrong and > > would result in unowned directories. Fixed the %{_libdir}/mozilla issue and > > added a dep on mozilla-filesystem instead. > > Since %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ is from a thirdparty package, that's > probably fine, but %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/ is owned by the fedora chromium > package... perhaps we should bug the maintainer to add a > "chromium-filesystem" subpackage: No, I don't think this is necessary. It's perfectly fine and a valid way to have multiple packages owning one directory: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function mozilla-filesystem exists probably just because it predates that guideline. > > > >Change the following: > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/base64 > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/head > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/jq > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/sha256sum > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/tr > > > > > > >to: > > > BuildRequires: coreutils > > > BuildRequires: jq > > > > Can you elaborate why you want me to change this? The former is much more > > clear on what is actually being used ... > > I realize, but the requires are not being generated correctly when probing > the binaries built from mock. > > $ rpm -qpR chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm > /usr/bin/python3 > gnome-shell > python(abi) = 3.5 > python3-gobject-base > python3-requests > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 How do you mean, not being generated correctly? We were talking about BuildRequires and changing them doesn't directly affect binary package requires (which you are querying above) in any way. -- 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