https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793156
Alejandro Alvarez <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Alejandro Alvarez <[email protected]> --- Hello, The checksums for upstream targz and the one in the srpm one do not match: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mozilla/rr/archive/26360c2617439ac2331f341f520d982621152220/rr-26360c2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 88bc8f77a44a5677d99d2044cc7e1ca08b49854919ec4a08702d5afd86aa42ff CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 970a764d810af8f64c066456488022e7e3e77552c01c75f55f9d21067f8b51fd diff -r also reports differences /usr/lib64/rr/librrpreload.so is unversioned, although I guess that's fine. Conditionals on rhel 7 makes me thing you want to build for epel7? Because it does not build there: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40807925 Is this really necessary? %undefine __brp_mangle_shebangs Also, some files are installed into /usr/bin that are not programs, nor scripts (rr_page_*) Not sure if that's a good idea. Can they go somewhere else, as /usr/lib or /usr/libexec? -- 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://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/[email protected]
