https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1971315 --- Comment #2 from Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1) > - Use -p to keep timestamps: > > %install > # Install the binary (already has all resources bundled) > install -d %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} > install -pm 0755 release/chessx %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} > > # Install the icon for the desktop file > install -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/pixmaps > install -pm 0644 data/images/chessx.png %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/pixmaps I realized that upstream already has support for installing these files (and also desktop + appdata file) via `make install` in the master branch, so I'll backport the patches and just use %make_install. > - explicitly BR gcc-c++ Will add in next iteration. > - Part of scid 1.0 (https://sourceforge.net/projects/scid/) is bundled, add: > > Provides: bundled(scid) = 1.0 Ditto. > - a copy of quazip is also bundled > > Provides: bundled(quazip) > > It would be better to unbundle it if possible as it is already packaged by > Fedora. See if upstream can help, For now I added the Provides, but I plan to look into unbundling later. > - it could be nice to provide an appdata file, see > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ As mentioned above, I'll let %make_install install the upstream one. > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version > 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 3-clause "New" or > "Revised" License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU > Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)", "GNU > Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal > address (Temple Place)]", "zlib/libpng license", "GNU General Public > License", "Expat License". 483 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/chessx/review- > chessx/licensecheck.txt Hm... I wonder if I should include all/some of these in the license field? Some files indeed contain a different license from what is in LICENSE. *Final notes* I opened two PRs against the upstream project to fix the installation of icons and drop executable bit from source files: https://github.com/Isarhamster/chessx/pull/61 https://github.com/Isarhamster/chessx/pull/62 I added these (and the upstream icons/appdata native install commits - rebased onto the v1.5.6 release version) as patch files to the SRPM. Updated SRPM and spec files: Spec URL: https://omos.fedorapeople.org/shared_files/chessx-v2/chessx.spec SRPM URL: https://omos.fedorapeople.org/shared_files/chessx-v2/chessx-1.5.6-3.fc35.src.rpm Diff from the last iteration: https://gitlab.com/omos/chessx/-/compare/chessx-1.5.6-2...chessx-1.5.6-3 Thanks a lot for the review! -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
