https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124244 --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- Initial spec review: > %if 0%{?fedora} > BuildRequires: libshaderc-devel > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(vulkan) > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libplacebo) > %else > %ifarch x86_64 > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(vulkan) > %endif > %endif All this conditional logic can be removed. The dependencies listed in the Fedora case also exist in EPEL 9, and Vulkan is not locked to x86_64 on RHEL 9. > %if 0%{?fedora} > Recommends: (yt-dlp or youtube-dl) > %else > Recommends: youtube-dl > %endif Rich dependencies work in all versions of RHEL that support weak dependencies, so you can rip this conditional out and use just the Fedora one for everything. > %package libs-devel The "libs-devel" name is... odd. I've not seen very many examples of this. Consider renaming it to "mpv-devel" or adding Provides to make it fit common conventions. > %files > %docdir %{_docdir}/%{name}/ > %{_docdir}/%{name}/ Wouldn't "%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}/" do the same thing here? > %files libs > %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.* The mpv library soname needs to be tracked. Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries -- 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=2124244 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
