https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439
--- Comment #7 from Honggang LI <ho...@redhat.com> ---
$ cat -n libvma.spec
.....
4 %{!?make_build: %global make_build %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} %{?mflags}
V=1}
It was my bad. I should told you to delete line 4.
5 %{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
Why you think line 5 is necessary? Can we just delete it too?
40 This package includes headers for building programs with libvma's
interface
41 directly, as opposed to loading it dynamically with LD_PRELOAD.
Line 40 and 41 are in the base sub-package libvma's %description section. The
base sub-package
dose not include any header. It seems line 40 and 41 belongs to sub-package
libvma-devel's
%description section. Is it right?
52 Summary: Libvma utilities
57 analyzing Libvma statistic.
Please replace "Libvma" with "libvma" for line 52 and 57.
68 %configure --docdir=%{_pkgdocdir} \
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"--docdir=%{_pkgdocdir}" is unnecessary. Should be removed?
85 %{?ldconfig}
92 %{?ldconfig}
Why you need line 85 and 92?
105 %license COPYING
Should append "LICENSE" in line 105.
$ tar -tf libvma-9.0.2.tar.gz | grep -i license
libvma-9.0.2/LICENSE
Thanks
--
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
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
