https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036395 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for the review, Arthur! (In reply to Arthur Bols from comment #1) > - Unnecessary versioned buildrequires > - ocaml >= 4.02.0 > - ocaml-dune >= 2.8 > These are satisfied in the last 3 Fedora versions, so they should be > unversioned. Those version requirements come from odoc-parser.opam. The practice of reflecting such version requirements in the BuildRequires is common in Fedora's OCaml packages. The idea is that if we build for various Fedora or EPEL releases, we don't have to check the version requirements every time, because mock/dnf/rpmbuild will let us know immediately if they are not satisfied. Please humor me; I would like to keep those version requirements even though they are satisfied in all current Fedora versions. > - Add some newlines in the %files section for readability I guess readability is in the eye of the beholder. It seems readable to me as it is (and again matches many other Fedora OCaml spec files). Forgive me, but I wish to keep that as it is as well. Now I feel bad that I'm rejecting all of your advice. But I think maintaining consistency with other OCaml spec files is a good reason. -- 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=2036395 _______________________________________________ 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
