https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568
--- Comment #7 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola(a)iki.fi> ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #5)
> Which would make sense. Just IMHO, and I recommend that for library-less
> -devel packages so they are like all other -devel packages. However, kindly
> refer to bug 798438 comment 9. The FPC finds it acceptable, if library-less
> development packages (no matter whether they contain only headers or also
> tools) would not be named -devel but used the base package for including
> their files. As such, building just uthash.noarch from uthash.src.rpm would
> be okay, although enough packagers would prefer the uthash-devel.noarch
> style.
Yes, I've seen this review before packaging uthash. I dislike packages only
named -devel, but no main package existed.
Well, the most important thing is that the package that provides the files
somehow provides uthash-devel. So either the main package contains the files
and Provides: uthash-devel, or the -devel package contains the files and
Provides: uthash.
In both cases "yum install uthash" works, and so does "yum install
uthash-devel".
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4)
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #3)
> Fails to build in mock
> perl ./do_tests
> test83 failed
> test84 failed
> 84 tests conducted, 2 failed.
Hmm... I know this problem as it occured when I first built it. But then
there are no problems, even fedora-review on my host is OK.
It would seem that these tests fail because the overhead on x86_64 is different
than the one (presumably) on x86, so it's okay to just disable tests 83 and 84.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lWCsXkXAzo&a=cc_unsubscribe