https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2414840
--- Comment #14 from Phil Wyett <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #13) > It’s a minor thing, but this doesn’t do what you intended: > > %if 0%{?el} <= 9 > > On Fedora, the el macro is not defined, and this expands to "%if 00 <= 9", > which is true – so the unnecessary manual .la file removal does happen on > Fedora. > > Since the only non-end-of-life EPEL older than EPEL9 is EPEL8, you might > just write "%if 0%{?el8}" or "%if %{defined el8}" instead. > > Explicitly removing the .la file is just unnecessary on Fedora (because it’s > handled by a buildroot policy script), not wrong or harmful, so I wouldn’t > block a package review on this. > > ---- > > You should be more explicit about listing files in shared directories, > > %{_includedir}/*.h > %{_includedir}/*.F90 > %{_libdir}/*.so > […] > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*.pc > > See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists. > > ---- > > A more straightforward way to write this > > Source0: > %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > would be this > > Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > If you want to be very precise about specifying a tag (only really required > if upstream > produces releases with the same names as tags, making the URL I’ve suggested > above > ambiguous), then you can also write > > Source0: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > which still avoids the "#/" hack. > > ---- > > I favor re-generating configure scripts from autotools sources by adding > BuildRequires on autoconf, automake, and libtool, and adding "autoreconf > --force --install --verbose" to %build (or to %conf, if using that section), > rather than using pre-generated configure scripts, but this has been a > matter of significant debate in Fedora, and there has never been a solid > consensus on what the Right Thing to Do is. Therefore, it wouldn’t be > correct to ask you to change this, only to point out that you have a choice. > > ---- > > Is there anything stopping you from running the tests? > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites > > ---- > > I still haven’t looked at this as closely as I would when doing a real > review, but this otherwise looks pretty reasonable. I think my new upload should cover the issues raised. Spec URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/giza.spec SRPM URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/giza-1.5.0-1.el9.src.rpm -- 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=2414840 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202414840%23c14 -- _______________________________________________ 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
