https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708719 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Gerstmayr <agerstmayr@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mark Goodwin from comment #4) > Have started reviewing this. Thanks! > To start with, the %{vector_version} macro > should not be necessary - instead just use %{version}. %{version} doesn't allow dashes, but the upstream version is v2.0.0-beta.1 Once there is a proper release (without dashes), I'll remove this macro. > Also, the Release: > line should use the dist macro, something like Release: 0.1.beta.1%{?dist}, > see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag > Normally a snapshot release would include the git HEAD commit id, but since > the upstream v2.0.0 release is imminent, we wont bother. fixed > Also, Source1 is not a webpack, it's a tarball of (locally npm installed) > node_modules, and it's huge compared to the built webpack files shipped in > the binary RPM. Is there any way the tests can use a webpack too, so we > could avoid bundling all of those node modules into a whopping 50MB tarball? Originally I used a real webpack (compiled JS files), but then I included the %test step in the spec. The test runner (jest) runs on the source files and compiles them just-in-time (see https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/4028), therefore it needs all dependencies. imho the best long-term solution for this would be a moderated fedora npm registry, as suggested by you in #1670656 ;) - but for now I think bundling the npm modules and building & testing the package in the build step is the best solution. We'd save a bit of space using a tar.bz2 archive (resulting size is 30MB), but I'm not sure if this is conform to Fedora packaging guidelines (I couldn't find any preferred/mandatory package format). > Also I think you should specify the following (despite this being a noarch > package), as we discussed earlier : > > ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches} > > This is because the node interpreter isn't available on some arch/dist > combinations, so Fedora builds would avoid them. ok RPM wants to create a debuginfo package now (and fails doing so), so I disabled it for now. Should I create a dev build of vector and include it in the debuginfo package? > I have more comments, but will post them later I've updated the spec and SRPM with the preliminary changes: SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreasgerstmayr/vector/rpm/vector.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~agerstma/vector/vector-2.0.0-0.1.beta.1.fc30.src.rpm Thanks for the review, I'm looking forward to more comments. Cheers, Andreas -- 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
