https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881782 --- Comment #3 from Yunying Sun <yunying.sun@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #2) > >Spec URL: https://github.com/yunyings/accel-config/blob/master/accel-config.spec > This link leads to a syntax-highlighted HTML rendition of the file. Please > use "raw file" links to the spec. > > >Group: System Environment/Base > >Group: Development/Libraries > >Group: System Environment/Libraries > >Group: Unspecified > Not used in Fedora. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections > > >URL: https://github.com/intel/%{project_name} > >Source0: https://github.com/intel/%{project_name}/archive/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz > You can simplify Source0 by using replacing the beginning with the "%{URL}" > macro. > > >make %{?_smp_mflags} > Use %make_build instead. > Thanks a lot Artur for the review. Comments above have been fixed. > >%package -n %{name}-test > >Summary: Unit tests for %{name}. > Hm, I don't quite get this. Would a developer using accel-config-devel ever > need to run these tests manually? Because "unit tests" makes it sound like > they just test if the library has been built properly - in which case, the > subpackage can be scrapped in favour of just running the test suite during > the RPM build, in the %check section. According to the description of this "test"(https://github.com/intel/idxd-config/tree/stable/test): "#accel-config test The test command is an option to test all the library code of accel-config, including set and get libaccfg functions for all components in dsa device, set large wq to exceed max total size in dsa, test the create-mdev and remove-mdev on shared wq and dedicated wq." It's testing the basic function of the libs that accel-config provides. By running this user could know whether the libs as well as the DSA kernel driver work as expected. So it's not checking whether the library was built properly, but functioning properly, while the -devel package is providing the libs & headers for applications to be built upon accel-config. It makes sense to keep it, right? I will leave this unchanged for now while double checking with upstream developer about this. Updated SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yunyings/accel-config/master/accel-config.spec Updated SRPM: https://github.com/yunyings/accel-config/raw/master/accel-config-2.8-1.fc32.src.rpm Updated Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52130166 -- 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
