https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025398

Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Hello Link, thank you for the package.

I tried to run it and it worked for me. The spec file is well-written as well.

I have only a couple of suggestions.

Patch0: fix-makefile.patch Patch1: silence-const-char-errors.patch

We try to be upstream-first, can you please submit those patches as pull requests, and link them in the spec as comments? Then we can easily check if they are merged and that we can drop the custom patches.

If upstream is not interested in such changes and won't merge, at least we tried and have justification for maintaining those patches here.

%global commit 535ad7fc57378025757461dcb582db8b4c944564 %global forgeurl https://github.com/linappleii/linapple Version: 0

I am looking at https://github.com/linappleii/linapple/blob/master/CHANGELOG and I think the current version is 2.1

So maybe we should package from this commit https://github.com/linappleii/linapple/commit/c78c192141f5024f7c8618992d7175... or maybe some other commit, that marks the 2.1 version?

It's from 2017 though, if we need some newer version, can you please ask upstream to create a new release?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025398

Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jkadlcik@redhat.c | |om) |

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com ---

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore

I am interested in reviewing this ticket but there is no response from the contributor.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025398

--- Comment #4 from Link Dupont link@sub-pop.net --- Hey, I'm not gone... just busy. I looked at the current GitHub repository, and noticed there are no tags at all. That's probably why I set up the version as "0" and used a specific git commit. I believe this is the procedure recommended in the packaging guidelines when upstream has not published a tagged version or tarball. With version 2.1 not existing as a tag or tarball, I'd rather version it as "0" for now. If upstream decides to apply a reproducible tag, we can use that instead. I'll open the patches as pull requests to the project. That's a good point.

I haven't pushed this review request forward since I'm not sure if it qualifies for inclusion in Fedora. I think it requires a ROM file in order to run. Isn't that against the packaging guidelines?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025398

Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Assignee|jkadlcik@redhat.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org