https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022554
Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(nphilipp@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #9 from Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8)
I skipped copying out the full review template for this iteration. I see just two issues with the latest submission:
Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
I think this will be OK in practice. My local mock build is release 2.fc36, so the -devel-doc subpackage Obsoletes the -devel package, and the -devel package Obsoletes itself. As long as the release number is correct, there shouldn’t be a problem.
I am not sure it is useful for the -devel package to explicitly Obsolete older versions of itself, although as far as I know it is not prohibited.
This is a technique so that if a user had the -devel package installed (which included headers and docs), updating would get them both -devel (without docs) and -devel-docs.
It does produce an rpmlint warning:
plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: self-obsoletion plotmm-devel < 0.1.2-35
obsoletes plotmm-devel = 0.1.2-2.fc36
Yeah, once this is properly resurrected, I need to take care of that it gets a suitably high release.
- The HTML documentation is not actually installed; you only create an “html” directory, but do not copy any documentation into it.
Oops. Fixed. 😃
I also noted:
- You could, if you like, omit “%license COPYING” in the devel-doc
subpackage, since it on the base package indirectly via the devel subpackage.
👍
The updated files are in the same places, I've moved the old versions out of the way (…/old/2):
Spec URL: https://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/plotmm/plotmm.spec SRPM URL: https://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/plotmm/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.src.rpm