https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237768 --- Comment #4 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you very much for the review. (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #2) > Some first thoughts while reading the spec file: > > > Requires: golly-data > > Is it really intended that this requirement is unversioned? If not, I would > recommend "golly-data = %{version}-%{release}" instead. > > Why is the golly-devel subpackage not noarch, too? It seems to populate the > same paths like golly-data does. If golly-devel contains versioned content, > I recommend to switch from "%{name} = %{version}-%{release}" to > "%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}". And if it's unversioned, I think > "BuildArch: noarch" would make more sense. Yes, both subpackages can be noarch. Since their content is provided by the upstream tarball, I think it would be best to make the dependencies fully versioned. > Is it intended that only golly-data can be installed (without having golly > itself installed)? Depending on how strong the dependency is (just a wild > guess), it also could be e.g. "Recommends: golly-data" in the main package > and "Requires: golly" in the subpackage. Agreed. Installing just a subpackage like -devel or -data without the main package is no real use case. Although the main package would work without the -data package with less features and probably some broken menu entries, I don't think it is intended to run without it. The main reason for splitting off the -data was that larger data should go into a separate subpackage according to the packaging guidelines. In that case, would it be OK that -data would require the main package (fully versioned) and the other way around as well? Then they both would be always installed (and updated) at the same time. For now I used Recommends: (versioned) in the provided spec file. > > desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop > > I would recommend to move this into %check, > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_desktop_file_install_usage (it seems to be more a check rather than an > installation command). Done. The guidelines seem to allow both, but I agree that semantically it would be rather a check task and not an install task. > > > URL: http://golly.sourceforge.net/ > > You could switch the URI scheme to HTTPS. Done. (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #3) > > Source0: https://sourceforge.net/projects/%{name}/files/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{version}-src.tar.gz > > As per > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > #_sourceforge_net, the following URL is preferred by Fedora: > > Source0: > https://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-src.tar.gz Corrected. > > # The license for the code is GPLv2+ and for the included python parts Python-2.0.1 > > # see /usr/share/licenses/golly/License.html > > # The license for the Life Lexicon is CC-BY-SA > > # see /usr/share/licenses/golly/lex.htm from https://conwaylife.com/ref/lexicon/lex_home.htm > > License: GPL-2.0-or-later AND Python-2.0.1 AND CC-BY-SA-3.0 > > I would use SPDX also in the comments. But do I get it correctly, that the > Life Lexicon is only packaged with golly-data, not with golly and/or > golly-devel? If so, I would go for something like this (especially as > CC-BY-SA-3.0 is only allowed at Fedora as content license): > > # The license for the code is GPL-2.0-or-later and for the included python > parts Python-2.0.1 > # see /usr/share/licenses/golly/License.html > # The license for the Life Lexicon (/usr/share/golly/Help/Lexicon/ in > golly-data) is CC-BY-SA-3.0 > # see /usr/share/licenses/golly/lex.htm from > https://conwaylife.com/ref/lexicon/lex_home.htm > License: GPL-2.0-or-later AND Python-2.0.1 > […] > > %package data > […] > License: GPL-2.0-or-later AND Python-2.0.1 AND CC-BY-SA-3.0 > […] Done. I moved the license files accordingly as well. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~chkr/review/golly.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~chkr/review/golly-4.2-2.fc40.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=2237768 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202237768%23c4 _______________________________________________ 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
