https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1631988 --- Comment #4 from Julio Gonzalez Gil <julio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/juliogonzalez/s3fs-fuse/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00801776-s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse.spec (committed the original git repo: https://github.com/juliogonzalez/s3fs-fuse-rpm/blob/f1d7a1fe3af208d05737c33fe33a2e11a1169f14/SPECS/s3fs-fuse.spec) SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/juliogonzalez/s3fs-fuse/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00801776-s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse-1.84-2.fc30.src.rpm Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29823228 > A quick glance at the source files for the project indicate that this is actually GPLv2+. Please adjust accordingly. Right, I was reading the COPYING file itself and the license configured at the GitHub repository, but the headers at the source files are GPLv2+ > Requires: fuse-libs >= 2.8.4 > BuildRequires: fuse-devel >= 2.8.4 Fuse is required according to the s3fs-fuse README at least for compilation( https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse#compilation), but after a few tries I noticed it's neither required to build or to run. fuse-libs is enough as you correctly guessed. I will submit a PR to s3fs-fuse to correct the README. I am still keeping a "Requires: fuse-libs >= 2.8.4" as it is needed for CentOS6/RHEL6 because otherwise the s3fs-fuse will install but will not work because both distributions have 2.8.3 (while s3fs-fuse requires at least 2.8.4). Obviously fuse 2.8.4 must be obtained from a third-party (I offer the specs at the same repo). Should I add comment about it at the SPEC? > Unversioned Obsoletes are not generally allowed in Fedora, and I don't believe we have an "s3fs" to replace. Yes, it seems there was s3fs a long time ago (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292#c32), but not anymore. Removed. > "%make_build" is preferred over "make %{?_smp_mflags}". Like "%autosetup", this has been backported to all supported EPEL targets. For CentOS7 and Amazon Linux (and I guess in general recent distributions), it works out of the box without EPEL repositories, but at CentOS6 it requires EPEL repository present, and then the package epel-rpm-macros installed. Otherwise the macro is not recognized and the build fails. And given that %{license} macro seems to have the same problem, instead of having ifs all over the place, I think the best solution is adding a Build Require: > %if 0%{?rhel} == 6 > BuildRequire: epel-rpm-macros > %endif Is it acceptable? Versions < 6 are out of support, and having "<= 6 breaks" Amazon Linux. I would like to have a SPEC that serves for several distributions, as it was until now :-) I already tried it, and it works fine for CentOS6, CentOS7 and Amazon Linux (2017.03, yes, I know should be using something more recent): If it is, I will update the SPEC and SRPMS tomorrow, so the review can continue. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
