https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506949 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- > Why name it psblas3-common and not psblas3-doc? It's a package that provides documentation, license and readme files, useful for all libraries packages. Serial and MPI packages can be separately installed keeping same documentation directory. > Makefiles are GPL-licensed, while install-sh scripts are NTP. License tag refers to the final library files, not to the scripts used for compiling. > Is there a virtual filesystem package that could provide these paths? I > couldn't find any. $ repoquery -f /usr/lib64/gfortran /usr/include/mpich-x86_64 /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules /usr/lib64/mpich /usr/include/openmpi-x86_64 /usr/lib64/mpich/lib /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules/mpich Mainly openmpi-devel, mpich-devel and gcc-gfortran. > Is this because the dependencies have e.g. "serial" between %{name} and > %{?_isa} ? Yes, probably. > You could add a comment for the sake of new packagers trying to understand how > to write their own spec files. Done. > I see in your changelog that you dealt with ldconfig, should fedora-review not > complain? Just psblas3-serial needs ldconfig scriptlets since install files in public lib directory. All library-without-ldconfig-* errors are false positive for the MPI libs. > unused-direct-shlib-dependency Unused dependencies fixed. SPECS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/psblas/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00655217-psblas3/psblas3.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/psblas/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00655217-psblas3/psblas3-3.5.0-4.fc28.src.rpm -- 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
