https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540335
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |pemensik@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pemensik@redhat.com
--- Comment #12 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- 1) Primary package primesieve does not depend on library. Requires is currently part of %description, where it does not have effect. Move it before description please.
2) In Fedora, lib<library> is not common for libraries. Instead, <pkg>-libs is usually used. If there is no strong objection, I would suggest using just %package libs, %files libs. If you want to keep compatibility with Debian naming, use Provides: libprimesieve%{?_isa} = libprimesieve-%{version}. It would still be accepted in yum install libprimesieve or other package dependencies. Some tool write warnings because it lacks common prefix, fedora-review tool is one of them. Note -n parameter is not required in this case Similar issue is with %package devel, %files devel.
3) Unless there is expected usage of static libraries, that offers significant speed advantage, I would omit static subpackage. It requires explicit exception and I doubt it is required. Use rm to remove *.la in %build or %install phase. [1]
4) %ldconfig_scriptlets libs should be used, only for library package it should be used. In current setup, %ldconfig_scriptlets -n libprimesieve would have to be used instead.
5) New version should be used now, since more recent release is available. I know, it was up to date when started. Sorry :)
Other than these few issues, package is ready to be packaged in Fedora. Good job for first package!
1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-...