https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303812
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Steffan <[email protected]> --- [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. This seems to be the Python C bindings and look to be okay. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Why is it best to bundle esmi_ib_library and not make another package? [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python I question if this shouldn't be just the main package name and not a python3- package. Does the package have any purpose if the cli isn't installed? [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream tests not suitable for running in offline. Do you have a bug filed for this? -- 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=2303812 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202303812%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
