https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763285 Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lkundrak@xxxxx) | --- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> --- (In reply to Matthew Krupcale from comment #1) > For the most part, this is close to ready, except for a few {Build,}Requires > and Obsoletes issues and license packaging details. > > Since this is splitting off from network-manager-applet, I looked at that > spec file, and it seems to indicate that libnma{,-devel} should obsolete > libnm-gtk{,-devel}. No, libnma doesn't obsolete libnma-gtk. It is gone without a replacement -- the Obsoletes should go to fedora-obsolete-packages. I'll do that once the network-manager-applet package is updated and libnm-gtk is actually dropped. > Issues: > ======= > - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Fixed. > - %bcond_without should be used for defining with by default > You may have this backwards for libnma_gtk4 > See: https://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html Good catch, thanks. Fixed. > - -devel and -gtk4-devel should require arch-dependent library packages: > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > and > Requires: %{name}-gtk4%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > respectively > See: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_requiring_base_package Yes. Fixed. > - -gtk4 and -gtk4-devel subpackages should only be defined when > %if %{with libnma_gtk4} No, it's the presence of %files section or lack thereof that decides whether a binary package is built. That is so by design. > - Should Obsoletes: libnm-gtk{,-devel} See above. > - %ldconfig_scriptlets is unnecessary on F28+ > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets Dropped it. > - License should be "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" due to contents in shared/ > Should install COPYING.LGPLv2.1. > This should be documented in the spec file as well. > See: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios Yes. This needs to get fixed upstream first: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/merge_requests/5 > - License not installed with -gtk4 Fixed. > - Consider moving %{_datadir}/gtk-doc files to noarch -devel-doc subpackage > See: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation Yeah, it could be done, but it seems rather unnecessary to me at this point. Updated package: SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/libnma.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/libnma-1.8.26-2.fc31.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://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
