https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdini...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(jpokorny@redhat.c
| |om)
--- Comment #56 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdini...@redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #55)
> Re macros in %changelog:
>
> Common way of escaping that convey what was meant down the road
> (e.g. to rpm -q --changelog query) is to use doubled '%', i.e.,
> %{_isa} -> %%{_isa}, not to drop the per cent character.
>
>
> Some concerns that remain:
>
> A. [Comment 28] 4.: no reason to mangle with debuginfo generation
> - one can always use command-line switches to achieve the same:
> http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-list/2013-April/001416.html
> (definitely not a mainstream need, even less in Fedora context)
>
> B. [Comment 11]: I'd still suggest using
>
> %{configure} \
> > %{?with_sctp:--enable-libknet-sctp} \
> > %{!?with_sctp:--disable-libknet-sctp} \
> > [...]
>
> Reason is also practical, e.g. the whole "configure" statement
> barely fits a single laptop screen for me currently, because
> the notation of choice is excessively line-hungry.
This is only a matter of personal preference. It doesn´t interfere in any way
with the review.
>
>
> Also, please:
>
> C. Refrain from initial spaces/indentation in %description-s.
rationale?
>
> D. Check whether there are some tests that could be run as part of
> the build under %check scriptlet (to be added if that's the case).
this is a good point, but FYI upstream already has an extensive CI/CD including
different versions of Fedora.
My only concern is that the testsuite does play with the network (loopback
interface) and should be very safe, but in the unlucky event of bugs, we should
probably avoid DoS´ing the fedora builders by generating unwanted traffic. I
think that Digimer choice to avoid running the test suite is more of a safe
precaution.
>
> E. Because libknet1-devel requires (indirectly) libknet1, it may
> drop the %license files, as these will be present thanks to
> libknet1 installed in parallel, hence satisfying:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/
> LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
Is this a blocker for the review or a wishlist level? what are the consequences
of not doing it?
>
>
> Rather for future consideration:
> - if the documentation for the API functions will keep growing,
> it might be desirable to split those manpages to a separate
> subpackage:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
> ("Or if there's a lot of documentation...")
Hardly, the API is pretty stable at this point.
--
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
