https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103 Jan Pokorný <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jpokorny@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #61 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Created attachment 1402543 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1402543&action=edit Example simplification Slipped the recent comment, but mentioned in [comment 54]: - either do not refer to particular macros in the changelog at all, double '%' characters (producing single '%' after macro processing, preventing macro expansion as such when it happens during the build process), or put it in some other understandable way, e.g.: "_isa" macro * * * >> [re A. and B.[ > > The current format still achieve the same technical goal. terse or > verbose is still a matter of personal preference. The code is not > obfuscated in either forms. We still did not get to why you insist on avoidable (B.) or inappropriate (A.) complexities without any gain for Fedora ecosystem. Attached is the patch how it may look. >>>> Also, please: >>>> >>>> C. Refrain from initial spaces/indentation in %description-s. >>> >>> rationale? >> >> Not looking weird in comparison to other packages, e.g. in >> various output of console programs dealing with packages. > > Please provide an example of which commands are you referring to. > It´s hard to guess what you see without some data. "rpm -qi" is the first test of choice. > [%check scriptlet discussion] Thanks. >> [re E.] > > You haven´t answered either of my questions. My answer was: let's just do it. >> [re G.] > > It reflects the version of the onwire protocol. There are plenty > libraries in Fedora that use similar convention. We can document > it somewhere in the spec file. it´s not going to drop. True, and other library cases mainly boil down to "multiple versions installed simulatenously" scenario as shown. Explicitly designating on-wire compatible series may also make sense, then please make this apparent in package summaries, e.g.: -Summary: Kronosnet core switching implementation +Summary: Kronosnet core switching implementation (protocol v1) >> [re I.] > > which version of the package did you test? we fixed that already > upstream in 1.1. ./configure.ac does check if it is necessary to link > to libm or not at build time to use ceil(). > > Your rpm seems old. Used SRPM per [comment 52], using. Just rechecked. It can be found in "Rpmlint (installed packages)" of review.txt generated with "fedora-review -rn kronosnet-1.1-3.fc27.src.rpm" on Rawhide. As mentioned, this has no effect on the review itself, just a feedback about detections (allowing for false positives) observed. -- 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
