https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303281 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #3) > (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #2) > > I was confused with mentioned ```libnormaliz``` library but turned out there > > is one with this name. Apart from that more severe issue exists - noarch > > doc-subpackage contains files in /usr/lib64 directory which is > > arch-dependent. Should it be something like > > > > ``` > > %docdir %{gap_noarchdir}/pkg/%{upname}/doc/ > > %docdir %{gap_boarchdir}/pkg/%{upname}/examples/ > > ``` > > Yes, I'm kind of cheating here. The entire GAP ecosystem is built for > 64-bit architectures only. Those files do go into /usr/lib64 for every > architecture for which they are built. I understand that is kind of dodgy. > Given the way the main gap package works, though, the documentation files > have to be installed in the same place as the rest of the package, so they > cannot go into %{gap_libdir}. The choice is either to do it this way (which > "works" because of the 64-bit-only nature of the packages) or make the doc > subpackage be arch-specific. I can do the latter if you object to the > current approach. Ok got that. That's unfortunate but we have to live with it for a while. In the mean time please take a closer look - maybe there is something which can be done to fix/overcome it. > > Also there are a few ```undefined-non-weak-symbol``` messages from rpmlint. > > Are these provided by Gap itself or this is a linking error (missing > > library?). Have you tried this already - does this package work? > > Think of this package as a plugin. The undefined symbols are provided by > /usr/bin/gap, which loads this shared object. Yes, it does work. You can > see it working when the test suite is executed. Ah ok got it. These were my biggest concerns which were explained to me. I don't see any other issues so this package is ================ === APPROVED === ================ -- 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=2303281 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202303281%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
