https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010116
Robby Callicotte <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Robby Callicotte <[email protected]> --- Hello, I am a new packager, so this is a an unofficial review. > %install > > > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root} > > > cp -pr doc plugin %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root} > > > > > > # Install AppData. > > > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{appdata_dir} > > > install -m 644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{appdata_dir} I believe this section should reference the macros where applicable. (ie %{__mkdir_p}, %{__cp}, %{__install}). This is a stylistic choice. > %files > > > %doc README.markdown > > > %{vimfiles_root}/doc/* > > > %{vimfiles_root}/plugin/* > > > %{appdata_dir}/vim-surround.metainfo.xml The contents of the tarball look like this: vim-surround-2.1 ├── doc │ └── surround.txt ├── plugin │ └── surround.vim └── README.markdown The %files section looks like it would assign ownership of all files under %{vimfiles_root}/doc/ and %{vimfiles_root}/plugin/ to this package. The spec should directly reference the names of these files. This will prevent file ownership conflicts. Try this: %{vimfiles_root}/doc/surround.txt %{vimfiles_root}/plugin/surround.vim --Robby -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010116 _______________________________________________ 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] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
