https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692166 --- Comment #7 from Björn Persson <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #4) > Most obvious things from a manual review of the spec file. These seem both > complex and unnecessary: > > # This readme file may be of some value to developers: > mkdir --parents %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/gnatcoll/xref > cp --preserve=timestamps xref/README.md \ > --target-directory=%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/gnatcoll/xref There are three reasons for this: 1: It keeps all the Gnatcoll documentation together under /usr/share/doc/gnatcoll instead of relegating some files to /usr/share/doc/gnatcoll-bindings-devel and /usr/share/doc/gnatcoll-db-devel. 2: Without the subdirectory named "xref" nothing in the pathname indicates that this readme file is specific to the xref component. 3: If upstream writes something useful in the other readme files in a future release, then subdirectories will definitely be necessary as they're all named README.md. gnatcoll-bindings-devel includes three different README.md in separate subdirectories. > %license COPYING3 That would make it /usr/share/licenses/gnatcoll-sql/COPYING3. That seems inappropriate for a license that applies to all the components of gnatcoll-db. > I don't know if the following is needed (because I believe that rpaths are > already > checked by RPM), but I guess it doesn't do any harm. Most likely it can be > deleted: > > %check > %{_rpmconfigdir}/check-rpaths As far as I understand this is not done automatically yet, but there is a proposal to do so: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886 We have an Ada-specific policy to run check-rpaths because the GNAT tools insert runpaths by default and the option to disable this didn't always work in the past. We should be able to relax this policy after the FPC's proposal gets implemented. (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #5) > gnatcoll-xref.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnatinspect > gnatcoll-db-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnatcoll_all2ada > gnatcoll-db-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnatcoll_db2ada > > - if one is available upstream it should be added, or you could write them; > however > it's not a review blocker In gnatcoll-doc (built from the source package gnatcoll) there is a manual in HTML and PDF, but most of the information about gnatinspect and gnatcoll_db2ada has been removed in this release. The removal is probably related to the splitting of the source repository. I hope they intend to add the documentation back as separate manuals eventually. > gnatcoll-db.src:83: W: unversioned-explicit-provides gnatinspect > gnatcoll-db.src:108: W: unversioned-explicit-provides gnatcoll_db2ada > gnatcoll-db.src:108: W: unversioned-explicit-provides gnatcoll_all2ada > > - this is a bug; the Provides lines should all have versions, ie: > > Provides: gnatinspect = %{version}-%{release} > ... > Provides: gnatcoll_db2ada = %{version}-%{release} > Provides: gnatcoll_all2ada = %{version}-%{release} OK, I'll fix this. An updated package is coming. -- 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
