https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086484 --- Comment #2 from Carl George 🤠 <carl@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I had a few other questions/suggestions that may or may not lead to changes. =============================================================================== Source1 is just installled as a %doc file. Could this be added to the upstream GitHub repo and maintained there? That would also avoid the need to manually copy it to the build directory in %prep, as it would already be there from the tarball extraction. =============================================================================== Several conditionals are disabled for EL releases. The comments indicate this is due to packages missing from RHEL, or not working from RHEL. Some of these are incorrect. Additionally, Fedora packages have the benefit of being able to be built in EPEL, where lots of packages that are missing from RHEL are maintained by the community for use on RHEL. This will probably allow many of these conditionals to be re-enabled. If the provided version is too old to work or is otherwise broken, then the affected conditional can be left disabled for that release. idn: libidn-devel in rhel7, rhel8, and epel9 lmdb: lmdb-devel in epel7, rhel8, and rhel9 autocrypt: sqlite-devel in rhel7, rhel8, and rhel9 idn2: libidn2-devel in epel7, rhel8, and rhel9 lua: lua-devel in rhel7, rhel8, and rhel9 lz4: lz4-devel in rhel7, rhel8, and rhel9 notmuch: notmuch-devel in epel8 and epel9 pcre2: pcre2-devel in rhel7, rhel8, and rhel9 zstd: libzstd-devel epel7, rhel8, and rhel9 =============================================================================== Consider replacing instances of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot}. This is not required. The guidelines only state to pick one and use it consistently, but I prefer the latter. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_using_buildroot_and_optflags_vs_rpm_build_root_and_rpm_opt_flags =============================================================================== Why is the %{_docdir}/neomutt directory being deleted on RHEL during %install? =============================================================================== There are a large number of %doc files. Consider splitting them out to a neomutt-doc subpackage. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation -- 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=2086484 _______________________________________________ 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
