https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673214 David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dshea@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(dshea@xxxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #2 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Additional comments: 1) I do not know what the debug stuff is under the Issues in the previous comment. I think this is bogus because the debuginfo and debugsource packages look fine. 2) The gcc and make BuildRequires can be dropped. 3) I also think the ldconfig thing is bogus since RPM triggers are now used for that stuff (right?). 4) Under SHOULD, the fully versioned dependency of subpackages is not complete? Maybe? Should the main mandoc package have a fully versioned dependency on the libmandoc subpackage? RPM already picks up the shared library dependency, but that potentially leaves the door open for having a different version of mandoc and libmandoc installed and is that something worth caring about? My thought is that the main package should have the fully versioned dependency to close the door on that potential situation. 5) %check is missing, but it could run "make regress". This is listed under the SHOULD items and is not required, so I will leave it up to you. Other than these items, the package looks fine. Awaiting feedback. -- 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
