https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022554 --- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I skipped copying out the full review template for this iteration. I see just two issues with the latest submission: - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ I think this will be OK in practice. My local mock build is release 2.fc36, so the -devel-doc subpackage Obsoletes the -devel package, and the -devel package Obsoletes itself. As long as the release number is correct, there shouldn’t be a problem. I am not sure it is useful for the -devel package to explicitly Obsolete older versions of itself, although as far as I know it is not prohibited. It does produce an rpmlint warning: plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: self-obsoletion plotmm-devel < 0.1.2-35 obsoletes plotmm-devel = 0.1.2-2.fc36 - The HTML documentation is not actually installed; you only create an “html” directory, but do not copy any documentation into it. I also noted: - You could, if you like, omit “%license COPYING” in the devel-doc subpackage, since it on the base package indirectly via the devel subpackage. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022554 _______________________________________________ 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
