Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Updated .spec file at the URL provided above to reflect requested
changes.
Please always bump the release, write in the changelog what you changed and
provide new links here.
(In reply to comment #3)
The review shows a couple concerns, one is the desire for
python2-devel. I'm
not sure that's required here, since it seems that salt also doesn't require
this library. But the
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires suggests this
is necessary. I will do a bit of legwork here to confirm it is indeed
required.
All python packages must require that by definition. This way it's ensured,
that /usr/bin/python and all headers are installed, in case it isn't a noarch
package. In this case a BR on python would be sufficient, but we defined in the
Guidelines to BR python?-devel nevertheless.
Additionally, the tarball checksum doesn't match the upstream
tarball.
However, the diff above shows no differences. I'm guessing this is because
you created your own tarball. When I build my rpms, I do a simple wget to
the SOURCES directory to ensure I have the current upstream tarball.
I normally do a "spectool -g $specfile" to get the sources.
--
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=oNkXmJShR1&a=cc_unsubscribe