https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344261
--- Comment #4 from Pete Walter <walter.pete(a)yandex.com> ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3)
Can you put both packages warsow (this bug) and warsaw-data (bug
#1344294)
in one spec file? warsaw-data could be a subpackage and is not much useful
for its own alone. We could handle all in one single review.
I think two separate packages makes things simpler. They are built from
separate tarballs and it makes packaging easier of they are separate SRPMs as
well.
Are you interested in a review swap? Maybe with bug #1344115.
Sorry, not really interested in wine stuff
> %global warsow_libdir %{_prefix}/lib/warsow
…
> # Filter private libraries from provides
> %global __provides_exclude_from ^%{warsow_libdir}/.*\\.so$
…
> # Install private libraries to a private directory
> install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{warsow_libdir}/libs
> install -m 755 libs/*.so $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{warsow_libdir}/libs/
…
%files
%{warsow_libdir}/
This does not look right to me. Please explain why this private(?) folder
must be used. You should use %{_libdir}/%{name} instead to also honor 64
bits with /usr/lib64/warsaw.
Private folder is used because it installs private libraries that aren't meant
for consumption by other apps.
> BuildRequires: /usr/bin/convert
> BuildRequires: /usr/bin/desktop-file-install
> BuildRequires: /usr/bin/dos2unix
Better is to use concrete package names:
BuildRequires: ImageMagick
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
BuildRequires: dos2unix
You can verify with dnf whatprovides.
I disagree here. Spelling out what executable we need makes packaging much
easier to understand.
--
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