https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #34 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- > I don't see a pkgconfig provided by gmp-devel or libmpc-devel. No worries then. > I got rid of the remaining libtool archive. I'm afraid I don't understand what header files or static objects shouldn't be there. This is a compiler, those are required for it to function. > It's a compiler, the headers are necessary as far as I'm aware. Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with packaging entire compiler toolchains. I'll ask in the fedora-devel mailing list to get some extra intel. > I'm not actually using the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT macro, I'm modifying a script that uses the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT environment variable. I could switch to using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT elsewhere in the spec, but then I'm mixing macro formats. I know. I just left it in as it's a part of the review matrix. > License line was definitely messed up, I fixed it the best I could matching the gcc, binutils, and gdb packages. I also copied how they handled license files. I don't understand the comment about copying.c, I'm assuming it's not supposed to be marked as a license file. I saw this in a couple of other C/C++ packages as well. The file does actually contain the license, but it's not a license file per-se. It merely generates it via consecutive print calls. > I agree this is gross, but it's not in "regular" gcc's ld path, so I think it's okay? I think it's okay. > I'm not sure I understand. I've added some missing requires (the C++ compiler now requires the C compiler, the C compiler now requires binutils), but if I add the "Requires: {name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}" requested, I just get packages that are uninstallable. Is there some documentation I can look at to see an example of what's being requested? Here's the section from the Packaging Guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package It typically applies to situations in which you have a base package and multiple subpackages. I might be misunderstanding this as well, but I think `fedora-review` here expects that every component should be tied to the main %{target}-toolchain package. But then again, we want some packages to be installable independently, but only be built together as a complete toolchain, right? -- 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
