https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803528 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- That's okay. You've made great progress. Specific comments below. (In reply to Iñaki Ucar from comment #4) > 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? I don't feel strongly about this either way. If R-devel already pulls in the compiler, then I'm okay with that. > 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). Those dictionary files are different enough that I worry that symlinking will lead to trouble. Maybe you should keep the bundled dictionaries and add the Provides: bundled(whatever-needs-to-go-here). > > - 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? The reason for symlinking is so that, if the Fedora rapidxml package is patched to fix some bug, rstudio will get the patch. You're right that if Fedora is shipping the straight unpatched upstream version, then there is nothing to be gained. > > - 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. Yes, I agree. -- 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
