https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029461 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #3) > (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) > > Where does the check-null-licenses script originate from? > > I wrote it to work around > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920223 around the time the > rewritten NodeJS guidelines came out in Fedora 34. > > Since then, nodejs-packaging-bundler was improved to flag the problem—at > least in the “prod” bundle. > > However, I’ve retained the auditing script in the several NodeJS packages I > maintain, because (a) it also checks the “dev” bundle, and (b) it’s a > convenient way to record what dependencies I’ve manually audited and why/how > I determined they are acceptably-licensed. Should we move it out of this package to nodejs-pacakging? ------------------ Requires: llhttp%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Consider including %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}, it is helpful to avoid future mistakes. ------------------ if [ '%{_prefix}/lib' != '%{_libdir}' ] then mv -v %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/libllhttp.so* '%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}' fi Should %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib also be deleted after the move? ------------------ The rest of the spec file looks quite reasonable. The comments are very helpful. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029461 _______________________________________________ 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
