https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745478 --- Comment #7 from Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #1) > first round of comments > - drop Group: - it's ignored > - drop Packager: - filled by the build system > - drop %clean - rpmbuild does it automagically > - drop all %attr() - rpmbuild set them automagically > - License tag must use Fedora identifiers - "LGPLv2 or BSD" > - %{_libdir}/libbpf.so belongs to -devel subpackage > - -devel subpackage should own %{_includedir}/bpf directory, you might use > wildcard to include the individual headers, or even list only the "bpf" > directory > - ideally the static library shouldn't be packaged, if it's a must, then it > belong to a separate -static subpackage > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static- > libraries) > - omit %dist in changelog I put new version (spec and srpm) in here: http://people.redhat.com/~jolsa/libbpf/v2/ thanks, jirka -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
