https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144849 Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |klember@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |klember@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Taking for review. As it's a rename of existing packages, I'll just do a quick check to make sure the obsoletes/provides are correct and skip the full new package review. Here are all the packages that this replaces: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dleyna-core https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dleyna-connector-dbus https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dleyna-renderer https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dleyna-server Looking through the binary packages in each of them, it looks like you've missed obsoletes/provides for dleyna-connector-dbus-devel. The rest seem to be correct from what I can tell. > Provides: dleyna-core = %{version} > Obsoletes: dleyna-core < 0.6.0-15 > Provides: dleyna-core-devel = %{version} > Obsoletes: dleyna-core-devel < 0.6.0-15 > Provides: dleyna-renderer-devel = %{version} > Obsoletes: dleyna-renderer-devel < 0.6.0-16 Instead of just %{version}, I would use %{version}-%{release} in provides, as that's the usual pattern used in Fedora packages. As for the obsoletes, they look right to me, but versioning them like this can be a bit fragile and break if one of the packages gets a release bump and rebuild for some reason in F37. It might be worth using < %{version}-%{release} for obsoletes as well to avoid that pitfall. > rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/dleyna/libdleyna-renderer-1.0.so \ > %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/dleyna-renderer-service-1.0.pc \ > %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/dleyna-server/libdleyna-server-1.0.so \ > %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/dleyna-server-service-1.0.pc \ > %{_includedir}/dleyna-1.0/renderer \ > %{_includedir}/dleyna-1.0/server I think I would just install all of them, but up to you. I would guess that they were excluded previously because someone didn't want to go through the trouble of creating a -devel package to put them into, but since you already have a common -devel package it would maybe be easier to just install all of them. > License: LGPLv2+ For new packages this has to be an SPDX ID, as per latest licensing guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names -- 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=2144849 _______________________________________________ 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
