https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791588 Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Skipping all correct condition and focusing on fix.(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #11) > > - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/vapoursynth- > > libs(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed), > > /usr/share/licenses/vapoursynth-libs(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, > > Failed), /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/VapourSynth-48-py3.8.egg- > > info(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed), > > /usr/include/vapoursynth(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed) > > This is not correct, there is no overlap here. I also think fedora-review is > going bonkers ("locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed"??). Let skip that part. > > > - Use "autosetup -p1" for patches rather than "setup" or "setup -q" and > > condition Patch1 for Fedora 32 > > I can not use autosetup as it would apply all patches regardless, so that's > why I used setup. Anyway I changed to the better upstream Python 3.8 patch > and I don't need a conditional anymore. > I looked at the spec and the patches work as intended. > > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > > Note: Mock build failed > > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > > guidelines/#_use_rpmlint > > $ rpmlint vapoursynth.spec vapoursynth*.rpm > vapoursynth-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > vapoursynth-plugins.x86_64: W: no-documentation > vapoursynth-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation > vapoursynth-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vspipe > 10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > > > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > > attached diff). > > See: (this test has no URL) > > Don't know where this comes from, but it's the same. Fair enough. Based on the overall review, the package is approved. Would you also follow the suggestion from comment #14 ? Thanks. -- 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
