https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #36 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Pete Walter from comment #35) > (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! Please do! > > > > > 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. That should be fine then > > > > > > >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. Sorry, ignore that last comment, I was very tired and distracted while typing that and for some reason I thought they were requires not build requires. (In reply to Yuri Konotopov from comment #34) > (In reply to Pete Walter from comment #31) > > > >Does the FF plugin have to be placed in /usr/lib64/mozilla for a 64bit system? or will it work just as fine in /usr/lib/mozilla? If it needs the arched folder, you can ignore this error, if it doesn't, please change this to a noarch package. > > > > Yes, it needs to be in /usr/lib64/mozilla. > > > > 64 bit Firefox should work fine with manifest file placed in /usr/lib/mozilla If that's the case, we can probably make it a noarch package, no? -- 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