On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:02:54 +0100, Federico Bruni wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520922 > The problems still to be solved are: > > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: > /usr/lib/.build-id(iputils, > efivar-libs, gd, gc, libtomcrypt, gdbm, gpgme, > rpm-plugin-selinux,[... cut] It is a bad sign, if someone only throws in the output of the fedora-review tool without adding any comments. As helpful as the checks from that tool are, there may be false positives. I would have expected the reviewer to be more explicit and confirm whether the tool is right. It doesn't handle /usr/lib/.build-id yet. > [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. The reviewer should give a rationale. You could guess and check build.log compiler output whether it's not using Fedora's global optflags (such as can be seen in "rpm -E %optflags") or whether it's overriding the flags somehow. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. The reviewer should be more explicit and tell details. > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines This is just a catch-all to set depending on whether any issues have been found. Often enough reviewers set it to [X] even for much larger packages, but haven't found all issues, because it can be a Herculean task to check a package with regard to everything covered by the guidelines. > %install > rm -rf %{buildroot} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections > %license COPYING > > %doc README.* COPYING If including the file COPYING as a licence file already, duplicating it also as a separate doc file isn't necessary and should not be done. _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
