[Bug 1673214] Review Request: mandoc - A suite of tools for compiling mdoc and man

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673214

David Shea <dshea@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(dshea@xxxxxxxxxx) |



--- Comment #3 from David Shea <dshea@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to David Cantrell from comment #2)
> 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.

That, plus the message about /usr/lib/.build-id/ being owned by every single
package, I think just means no one has updated fedora-review in a while to
handle the new debug package stuff.

> 2) The gcc and make BuildRequires can be dropped.

gcc needs to be in BuildRequires because Fedora decided not to include those by
default anymore.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot

make could probably be dropped but I figured just leave it in to stay ahead of
the next round of buildroot changes.

> 3) I also think the ldconfig thing is bogus since RPM triggers are now used
> for that stuff (right?).

It is bogus, but I should probably use the %ldconfig_scriptlets macro so
/sbin/ldconfig runs on EPEL. Added to the next revision.

> 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.

I guess it'd be best to avoid the versions of mandoc and libmandoc differing.
Added a fully versioned Requires.

> 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.

Added.

Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dshea/mandoc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00856080-mandoc/mandoc.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dshea/mandoc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00856080-mandoc/mandoc-1.14.4-2.fc30.src.rpm

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux