https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803528 --- Comment #4 from Iñaki Ucar <i.ucar86@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #3) > These are the issues fedora-review found: > > - 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++/ This conflicts with the "minimum requirements" guideline. RStudio requires R-devel, which in turn already requires gcc, gcc-c++ and others. That's why the guidelines for R packages state that only the R build-dependency is needed. This is not an R package though. And I don't have any special preference about this. What do you think? > - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- > file-validate if there is such a file. The file is automatically installed, so I need to run desktop-file-validate. Thanks. > - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) > for the package is included in %license. > Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text > > I think that last one is talking about these files: > - src/gwt/lib/gin/2.1.2/LICENSE > - src/cpp/session/resources/presentation/revealjs/LICENSE I missed those, thanks. > Also, while the dictionaries may have come from Chromium, they are > ultimately derived from hunspell. We have many hunspell dictionaries in > Fedora, and not just the English ones. For the source of the bundled > dictionaries in this package, see hunspell-en, hunspell-en-GB, and > hunspell-en-US. I'm not sure how this should be handled, but you must > either unbundle these dictionaries or add "Provides: bundled(hunspell-en)", > etc. to the spec file. You're right. They provide the .aff and the .dic, but also some .dic_delta with additions. What if I symlink the first two and keep the delta? Not sure what happens if there are definitions in the delta that are already in the .dic (I suppose it may happen if there's a version mismatch). > Speaking of bundling, this package bundles other software that we already > have in Fedora. This is what I have found so far: > - js-jquery: src/cpp/session/resources/grid/datatables/js/jquery.js And in fact, I've just discovered that we have xstatic-datatables-common, but the contents differ a little. The one bundled in RStudio is an older version. So I propose declaring bundled(js-datatables) (and thus I need to add MIT to the list of licenses) and substituting that version of jQuery with a symlink to the one provided by the system. > - rapidxml-devel: src/cpp/core/include/core/rapidxml This is just a header-only library, same version, and doesn't require any .so afterwards. I can substitute the file with a symlink. Is it worthwhile? > - texlive-synctex: src/cpp/core/tex/synctex Ok, I see that's in texlive-lib-devel. Another symlink. > - zlib: src/cpp/core/zlib and src/cpp/core/include/core/zlib I think we are fine here, because the one provided by the system should be picked. In fact, libz.so is listed in the automatic requires and no other libz.so is produced. So if I didn't miss anything, no change should be required. > I think we're going to have to go through the source tree carefully to see > what else is bundled in it. Yeap, I'll take another closer look, especially to the "resources" directory. -- 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
