https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086484 --- Comment #6 from Richard Russon <rich@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- I've covered most of your requests, and learned a lot along the way. I think I now understand how the Centos Stream, RHEL, EPEL fit together. It's all gone OK, except for RHEL7 -- it's just too old. There's GPGME, but it's not new enough for Autocrypt; There's Lua, but it's too old to compile; and our biggest feature, Notmuch, is a non-starter. If we don't even try to support RHEL7, then the spec file is trivial. =============================================================================== Simple stuff, first: > Remove the BugURL line > format for the Source URL > Each patch should have a comment > BuildRequires: gcc > _pkgdocdir macro definition can be removed > The package places files in /usr/libexec/neomutt/ > replacing instances of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot} Done =============================================================================== > licensecheck utility I've done my best to comment the exceptions from GPLv2+. Suggestions welcome. =============================================================================== > %configure, %make_build, and make_install Done. This _mostly_ works. RHEL7 seems to require me to add `CC=gcc` to %configure (other systems seem to work ok without it) =============================================================================== > license file should be marked as %license, not %doc > -%doc *.md > +%license LICENSE.md > +%doc AUTHORS.md ChangeLog.md INSTALL.md README.md SECURITY.md I did this, but then it complained that LICENSE.md was installed but not packaged. Currently the spec has both %license and %doc for LICENSE.md =============================================================================== > Source1 is just installed as a %doc file Good point. I've upstreamed that and a couple of the patches. However, the spec file won't work until I make a release with the changes. I'll do that soon. =============================================================================== > Several conditionals are disabled for EL releases. > this is due to packages missing from RHEL, or not working from RHEL Yeah, the spec file is very old :-) I've stripped out the unnecessary conditionals, leaving only RHEL7. EPEL now contains everything NeoMutt needs. =============================================================================== > Why is the %{_docdir}/neomutt directory being deleted on RHEL during install? Ah! I discovered the reason (dating back six years). NeoMutt installs the docs into /usr/share/doc/neomutt RHEL7 (and only this) expects its docs in neomutt-VERSION At the end of every build, Mock would complain about all the unpackaged files. I've replaced the `rm -fr` with a `mv` and now it's happier. =============================================================================== > There are a large number of %doc files. Consider splitting them out I gave this a try, but I couldn't figure it out. I was hoping to be able to just move the %doc, etc, into %package doc %files doc ... Unfortunately, this expected files in /usr/share/doc/neomutt-doc/ Is there some simple way to set the install dir to just 'neomutt'? When you next have some time, I'm ready for your next round of reviewing. Many thanks! -- 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=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
