https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 --- Comment #5 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> --- Great! Just two things; otherwise the package looks fine: > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_complete.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_history.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_lexer.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_main.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_private.ml > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_styles.mli > utop.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/utop/uTop_token.ml I wasn't sure about this when I was looking at utop myself. Does utop depend on these include files to function? Or should they be moved off into a -devel package? Also from rpmlint: > utop.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides ocaml-%{name} I don't think there is any harm in making this versioned, to make rpmlint slightly happier. -- 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
