https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752288 --- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2) > Naming: Coin4 → coin4 > [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/ > #_general_naming] > Provides:Coin4 can be added. I'm not necessarily against this but I was trying to stay consistent with Coin2 and Coin3 already in Fedora... > Requires: zlib-devel bzip2-devel > → one per line please > > %description devel → there should be a dot at the end of the text. Fixed. > Looks all nice. Though I wonder one thing: is is worth to bother with > alternatives? > Maybe just make coin*-devel packages Conflict with each other? The user > doesn't get > much benefit either way: it is still not possible to build against multiple > Coin versions > at the same time, and conflicting packages are easier to implement. Yeah, I considered both but decided to stay consistent with Ralf's packages as it does let you switch between them if you are actively developing with the Coin3D stack, but yes, it serves no purpose on Fedora Infra. (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3) > fedora-review says: > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 127211520 bytes in 4678 files. > > Yep, /usr/share/doc/Coin4/html should move to -doc subpackage. Yeah, the guidelines are somewhat ambiguous here... so <name>-doc or <name>-devel-doc? :) -- 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
