[Bug 2133551] Review Request: fido-device-onboard - A rust implementation of the FIDO Device Onboard Specification

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133551



--- Comment #38 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #36)
> (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #34)
> > RPM cannot parse the linked spec file - the %{gittag} macro is undefined
> > (and it looks like it's no longer used).
> 
> It was cut and paste directly from the packaging guidelines you suggested in
> comment 18, point 3. I will remove.

Yes, but those guidelines should also mention that you need to actually define
those macros somewhere :)
In this case, I'm pretty sure you can just replace %{gittag} with version.

> > Additionally, at first glance, "%global debug_package %{nil}" is a red flag.
> > It should not be needed - but if it *is* needed to make RPM happy, then the
> > package is built without debuginfo, i.e. with nonstandard compiler flags. I
> > can't see any indication of custom cargo profiles, so likely "%global
> > debug_package %{nil}" can just be removed to restore debuginfo subpackage
> > generation.
> 
> Probabky a left over of the 100 revisions. Can't those just be fixed on
> commit?

Sure.

(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #37)
> (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #35)
> > Note: I see that the License tag is now included in all subpackages. You
> > could make updating it easier by deduplicating it, i.e. defining something
> > like
> > 
> > %global binary_license Apache-2.0 AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND ...
> > 
> > at the top of the spec file and using "License: %binary_license" in
> > subpackages.
> 
> Sure, but I was just copying what rust-rpm-sequoia has as you had suggested,
> again I see this as a minor point that can be fixed on commit??

rpm-sequoia has only one subpackage, so there's nothing to de-duplicate.
But yes, this can be fixed post-approval-pre-import.

In the meantime, I'll try to make fedora-review work in the case where the
linked spec file is invalid ...


-- 
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=2133551

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202133551%23c38
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux