https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636668 --- Comment #8 from John F <johnhford@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Luis Segundo from comment #7) > Please check this issues > > Issues: > ======= > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Those header files aren't actually useful for development and this tool is not really intended to be a usable library as I understand. Since that package isn't something that I actually created myself, my expectation is that the Fedora system knows which header files are useful for creating a valid debugsource package. I couldn't find further information on exactly what should be in the debugsource package, but using an example of Firefox, $ rpm -qlp firefox-debugsource-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm | grep "[.]h$" | head /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/aom/AccessibleNode.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/AccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/ApplicationAccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/AtkSocketAccessible.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/DOMtoATK.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/DocAccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/InterfaceInitFuncs.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/RootAccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/nsMai.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/nsMaiHyperlink.h there are 11176 header files in that debugsource file as well as a bunch of cpp files. There's more info here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SubpackageAndSourceDebuginfo > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 On Fedora 29 and Rawhide, that's actually a requirement for a successful build. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot Since it's a no-op on Fedora 28, I suspect that it's not really worthwhile making conditional for Fedora 28. > - [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). That's because I switched to building the RPM using the rawhide mock configuration which generated a file with fc30 in the path and forgot to put a new link to the package. The correct link is http://johnford.org/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc30.src.rpm and I have deleted the fc28.src.rpm file from my server. I have updated the Spec and Srpm which the links point to, and I'll upload a new spec file shortly. > none document file? There aren't really any documentation files as such. The README.md file contains nothing useful, though I did fine a GPL.txt and Change.log file in the repository which I've updated the spec file to include. -- 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
