https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819459 --- Comment #3 from Mat Booth <mat.booth@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2) > Other than the few non-blocking issues noted below, the package looks pretty > good. > Please look at the issues below and fix them before importing the package, > if applicable. > > > ====== ISSUES ====== > > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > > Yup, 3.1.3 is 10 years old, but it's still the latest version :) > > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xmlrpc- > common , xmlrpc-client , xmlrpc-server > > Maybe the dependency from -client and -server onto -common should be exact? > I don't think this should ever cause a problem (since upstream is dead), but > better be safe than sorry, I guess ... > > Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} > I don't know why the fedora-review tool doesn't show this, but the auto-generated requirements on the common package are actually sufficiently versioned: $ rpm -qp --requires xmlrpc-client-3.1.3-24.fc33.noarch.rpm ... mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-common) = 3.1.3 osgi(org.apache.xmlrpc.common) = 3.1.3 > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > > Can you add some comments to the PatchXs in the .spec file before importing > the package? > > Yes, of course. Many thanks again! -- 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
