https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1516411 David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #3) > Generic: > [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/ijs(ghostscript- > devel) > > This is expected. Ghostscript-devel owns the directory now, but > it won't after adding libijs package. Yes. One of the reason to create this package is to de-bundle the Ghostscript package as possible, because upstream bundles a lot of other software in it. AFAICT, libijs is the last part needed to completely de-bundle the Ghostscript. > [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > > Versioning of package is in form libijs-0.35-1.gitHASH, which is > not according FPG. Packager is aware of it - some new packages is > using this way and he thinks the versioning part of FPG is > deprecated. Packager is willing to change it if that causes > problems for someone. I wouldn't say exactly deprecated, but rather outdated. To clarify - the exact advised format advised by FPG is: pkg-%{version}-%{release}.YYYYMMDDgitSHORTHASH{?dist} I decided to omit the YYYMMDD part, because it is derived from the day of commit, which can be easily derived from the git repository and short hash, and it does not add any useful value because of it. IMHO more shorter package NVR is favorable in this matter. NOTE: For example docker package are using the same versioning as I have used for 'libijs'. > [?]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > > Upstream will create mirror in near future, that's why it is only > tarball right now. The tarball was created via git-archive from upstream's git repository. Because of their internal meetings they can't create a new Github mirror for it right now. I expect to switch the SourceX to the mirror once it is available. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. > See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools > > This requirement is optional and package works with it. Packager > was informed about the issue. This software falls into 'legacy' category and is in maintenance mode only. AFAICT upstream tries not to touch it unless really necessary. IMHO fixing this issue is not worth it just for the sake of fedora-review. ----------------- NOTE: The license files were added manually after discussion & agreement with upstream. They will add (and probably modify a little bit) the license files once the mirror is created, so these files are part of resulting tarballs. ----------------- Zdenek, if there's nothing else wrong with the specfile, could you please provide the fedora-review+, flag? Thank you! :) -- 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
