https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072752
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <[email protected]> --- > Release: 1%{?dist} > %changelog > ... Suggestion: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/index.html > mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/licenses/%{name}/ > install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE1} \ > ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/licenses/%{name}/LICENSE I don't think you need to do this. Just '%license %{SOURCE1}' should be enough. fedora-review says: - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages The %files pattern seems wrong: %{_libdir}/libtinyexr.so should be in -devel. Hmm, if I go to https://www.openexr.com/, they link to https://github.com/AcademySoftwareFoundation/openexr, which has version 3.1.4 as the latest. https://github.com/syoyo/tinyexr seems to be a dead project. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072752 _______________________________________________ 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
