https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111691
--- Comment #43 from Andy Mender <andymenderu...@gmail.com> ---
Super good job on the updates! :)
> Requires: %{name}-libqore%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires: %{name}-stdlib%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
To make the main package fully "meta", there should be lines like these for all
of the subpackages. Also, I think the libqore package is actually called just
"libqore". At least that's how Koji built it and that's what I see in my local
mock environment as well.
> This leads to the following error; I assume a noarch pkg should not depend on
> an arch-specific package:
> > BuildError: The following noarch package built differently on different
> > architectures: qore-misc-tools-0.9.4.6-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
> > rpmdiff output was:
> > removed REQUIRES qore(armv7hl-32) = 0.9.4.6-1.fc33
> > added REQUIRES qore(x86-32) = 0.9.4.6-1.fc33
You're completely right. It only works for the opposite - an arch package
depending on a noarch package. What you can do is make qore-misc-tools depend
on only a subset of the qore subpackages - the ones it actually requires. I
guess that would be "libqore" primarily?
> %install
> %make_install -p
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{module_dir}
> rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libqore.la
If you look closely, the last 2 paths will contain duplicate forward slashes.
Not a big thing, but the below should be okay:
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{module_dir}
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libqore.la
> %files -n libqore
> %{_libdir}/libqore.so.6.2.1
> %{_libdir}/libqore.so.6
> %license COPYING.LGPL COPYING.GPL COPYING.MIT
> %doc README.md README-LICENSE README-MODULES RELEASE-NOTES AUTHORS ABOUT
I think the README-LICENSE file is actually a license file with extra
commentary so it should be listed together with the other license files with
the %license macro. Also, since qore is multi-licensed and highly modular, I
would add README-LICENSE to the -devel and -misc-tools subpackages.
> %changelog
> [...]
> - replaced %{_datarootdir} with ${_datadir}
> [...]
> - removed obsolete references to %defattr and ldconfig
> - use %make_build instead of a hardcoded make line
> - use %make_install -p instead of a hardcoded make install line
Minor nitpick, you should avoid using macros in %changelog records or escape
them by repeating the macro character (for instance, %%make_build instead of
%make_build).
> * Thu Jul 30 2020 David Nichols <da...@qore.org> 0.9.4.5-1
> - added required BuildRequires for gcc-c++
I think the dist tag on this one was supposed to be 2 (full version 0.9.4.5-2),
right?
--
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
