https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278422 --- Comment #9 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #8) > The spec file is big, so there are some issues for sure, but I cannot find > anymore, so it LGTM. The package is APPROVED. Thanks for explaining the > raised issues. Thank you for sticking with me through this ordeal. Whew! > BTW, before writing the part under "# These two files are identical", you > did know the %fdupes macro, right? It takes all the thinking from you. Yes, but in this case it wasn't clear to me which one should be the symlink and which the real file, so I punted and hardlinked them. :-) > - rpmlint reports "python-nbdime.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: > nbdime-4.0.1-vendor.tar.xz" but I don't see anything wrong with it. It's > self-prepared, and not downloaded, and unpacks properly. That just means that the name is not a resolvable URL, like https://something. This warning is always issued for files prepared by the packager, rather than downloaded from somewhere. > - rpmlint reports "python3-nbdime.noarch: W: cross-directory-hard-link > /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/nbdime/webapp/testnotebooks/base.ipynb > /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/nbdime/tests/files/multi_cell_nb.ipynb" > but I don't see it as an issue because those files are under application's > common directory named nbdime. Agreed. > - review.txt mentions several "Creative Commons" licenses that are not > listed in the spec file, but I also don't see any file in the binary rpm > that it should be assigned to, so I guess it's OK. Yes, more JavaScript is needed at build time than is bundled into the final binary RPM. Thank you 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=2278422 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202278422%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ 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
