https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184414 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wright <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- > MIT-0 is distinct to MIT. This is the former Wow I'd never seen MIT-0 before. Thanks for that catch. > Seems noarch is wrong for this strange package Only the sub-package is noarch so this is in accordance with my understanding of the guidelines. Specifically this is exactly what I'm doing: > When the contents of subpackages, including the -devel package, are actually architecture-independent, they may still be marked noarch. Since the base package for a header library typically has no %files list, this may result in an arched package that builds only noarch rpms. > * Could use the %forgeurl macro https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control > * Could use %autochanglog Not really a fan of these two things so I generally don't use them. Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/miniaudio.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/miniaudio-0.11.14-1.fc39.src.rpm -- 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=2184414 _______________________________________________ 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
