https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707080
--- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Škarvada <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #2) Thanks for the review. > Found issues: > * The package produces strange named so library > /usr/lib64/libosmo-fl2k.so.0.1git. I think numbers are expected to be in so > version name, git should not be present. > * No release tarball URL is specified. Spec file should at least contain > link to the source code repository, which is also missing. It is not clear > where provided source comes from. > * Also, binaries and libraries should not be part of single package, libs > subpackage should be used [1]. Hopefully all fixed. > * File /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/10-osmo-fl2k.rules is shipped, but its > directory is not owned by package or required by the package (systemd-udev > or kexec-tools). > I think this is not needed [1] [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function -- 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
