https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dank@xxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #33 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Condensed summary: * The notcurses-data package does not really make sense to me. The main package requires it, so there's never an instance where you wouldn't have the notcurses package installed and not the data subpackage. To me what would make more sense is having a notcurses-demo subpackage that contains the demo programs and the data files used by those demos. Reduce the notcurses main package to just the shared libraries needed for runtime use. This is just my opinion and the split up is your decision, but having a dedicated demo subpackage would make more sense to me. * If you stick with the notcurses-data package, then it needs an explicit Requires on the main package in the format "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}" * The notcurses-data package needs to own /usr/share/notcurses. I would reduce the files section to: %files data %{_datadir}/%{name} (Of course, if you go with the demo subpackage idea then change accordingly.) * Entries in the %changelog should have a blank line between them. * /usr/lib64/libnotcurses.so.1.3.3 calls exit(), which I found in ncsubproc_createv() and friends. If this is deliberate for the library, that's fine. Without digging in to it more, I'm assuming 'ncsubproc' is spawning processes for planes, but I haven't gotten that far in my playing with notcurses. * /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/notcurses/notcurses.py is still 0644. Proposed fixes: * Add "chmod 0755 %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}/%{name}/%{name}.py" to the %install block * Add "%attr(root, root, 0755) %{python3_sitearch}/%{name}/%{name}.py" to the %files block for the python package * Figure out how to modify setup.py to install notcurses.py with 0755 permissions. BOGUS THINGS THAT CAN BE IGNORED: * The unversioned /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/_notcurses.abi3.so file is misleading in the fedora-review tool. This is reporting that _notcurses.abi3.so is a ".so" file without a corresponding ".so.1.2.3" file alongside it like you see in /usr/lib or something. It thingks this is a devel symlink. This fedora-review test should be skipped for Python .so files, so I think I'll track that down today. -- 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
