https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828205 --- Comment #15 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> --- If a review is already in progress by someone else, please make sure it is ok to jump in. I wasted a lot of time today because you had already commented here. I assigned the review to myself because I was handling it. (In reply to Vitaly Zaitsev from comment #14) > > I needed to do this to name the package doctest-devel. I see that in #6 you suggest renaming it doctest. Please see comments #1--#3 where this is discussed. Your recommendation appears to contradict the advice given me by David Cantrell. > > He gave you the wrong recommendation. The upstream name is doctest, so you > must use it as the name of package. I never said to rename the package to 'doctest-devel', I'm not sure where anyone is getting this. > The main package will not produce any output, all logic will be moved to > -devel subpackage. > > Read this: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/ > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_packaging_header_only_libraries > > > I believe that without this line, I got an error during "make install". I'll test with your change and see, but this was only added due to a need for it. > > Just take my SPEC file. It builds absolutely fine and follow all Fedora > guidelines. > > > It was my understanding that Ninja is faster for *rebuilds*, not initial builds. I'll go ahead and run with both and see if the timings are different. > > Make is a legacy, ancient tool. Ninja is much more better. It has no issues > with special characters and generate beautiful output. These comments are subjective and an opinion. The package maintainer is free to use tools they prefer. Many projects offer multiple ways to build and if the package maintainer wants to use one method of another, that's fine. The reviewer can advise on common best practices but the requirement is not that a packager must use specific tools, but rather that the packaged output conforms to agreed upon packaging guidelines. > > I'm using an arched package. > > Good. This line was for the reviewer. The package in question delivers metadata. My original understanding was that this was not architecture specific, but as later discovered it encodes arch-specific library paths in those files which now makes it arch-specific. -- 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
