https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. |) |com) --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ Hmmmm, fedora-review came up with this issue on its own. The funny thing is that I do not see openssl1.1-devel in root.log, so it wasn't even installed. I suspect that fedora-review saw that this package BuildRequires both pkgconfig(libcrypto) and pkgconfig(openssl), and saw that openssl1.1-devel, a deprecated package, Provides both of those. Well, openssl-devel Provides them, too. I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here. Perhaps this package should BuildRequires: openssl-devel explicitly to be sure that openssl1.1-devel can't be used to fulfill the BuildRequires? -> Now depending on BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl) > 3.0.0 - Can you remove /usr/share/doc/gocryptfs/Documentation/.gitignore from the binary package? I don't see why MANPAGE-render.bash should be there either. Both files are also in golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel. -> Now picking only md and txt files %global godocs README.md Documentation/*.txt Documentation/*.md\\\ Documentation/*.png %doc README.md Documentation/*.txt Documentation/*.md Documentation/*.png - There are man pages in /usr/share/doc/gocryptfs/Documentation. Some are also in /usr/share/man/man1, and some aren't. Shouldn't they all be there instead of in the Documentation directory? The man pages are also in the golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel, which doesn't seem right since that package contains no binaries. See above. - There are no debuginfo or debugsource packages for the gocryptfs package, which contains binaries. Shouldn't there be? Indeed. Removed the disabling of it. Also since we're statically linked, we need t add the licenses of the deps: # License for github.com/rfjakob/gocryptfs/v2: MIT # License for github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto: Apache-2.0 # License for github.com/hanwen/go-fuse/v2: BSD-3-Clause # License for github.com/moby/sys/mountinfo: Apache-2.0 # License for github.com/pkg/xattr: BSD-2-Clause # License for github.com/rfjakob/eme: MIT # License for github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore: MIT # License for github.com/spf13/pflag: BSD-3-Clause # License for golang.org/x/crypto: BSD-3-Clause # License for golang.org/x/sys: BSD-3-Clause # License for golang.org/x/term: BSD-3-Clause License: MIT AND BSD-3-Clause AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gocryptfs.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gocryptfs-2.4.0-1.fc39.src.rpm Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/gocryptfs/build/6577981/ Fedora-revew template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/gocryptfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06577981-gocryptfs/fedora-review/review.txt Thanks for the review! -- 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=2241620 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241620%23c3 _______________________________________________ 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