https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > Can you please be more clear on what I'm missing here? Is it the addition of > -O3 to the flags? I've corrected that bit now, but you'll have to point out > what else I'm missing, I'm afraid. Yes, -O3 and possibly more flags that override Fedora's defaults. The guidelines offer multiple choices how to handle such a case. Removing -O3 is the most plausible option. > I've now copied bits from wikipedia too. How is this? The primary issue remains. The base package "libb64" does not contain a library. It also doesn't contain the source code. It contains only the command-line executable with nothing in the %description commenting on it or its strengths compared with the tool from coreutils. Is the primary interest in the library and API or the executable? I understand that you need the lib as buildreq for other packages, but if shipping the tool in a separate non-devel package starting with a "lib" prefix in its name, the package description should mention that. Note that you could also build a "libb64-tools" subpackage instead, even if it's only a single executable. -- 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
