https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727502
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelen <jjelen(a)redhat.com> ---
Release: 0.1.20130220%{?dist}
I think the date in the release should be the date when you pulled the tarball
from upstream, not the date when the tarball was created by upstream
(especially if I see newer changes in the git
https://gitlab.com/janezkonc/mcqd/ ). But that is not very important since this
detail is not explicitly clarified in the packaging guidelines.
I see you only packaged only the binary file which is kind of example program.
I am wondering whether it would make sense to package also the header files in
the -devel subpackage, if you plan to use that algorithm in some of your
work/packages/tools.
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
cp -p %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
You should use "install" instead of "cp" and "mkdir".
%check
./mcqd test.clq
I do not see the mcqd binary to produce exit code if it fails (but I am not a
C++ programmer so I might be missing something). So I think for the check to be
useful, you should check that the produced output is sane, for example the
output contains "Maximum clique:" twice or something like that.
Otherwise, it looks good to me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component