https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2443729
--- Comment #8 from Daiki Ueno <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Alexander Sosedkin from comment #6) > Things that affect the normal rawhide nettle as well: > IMO MUST fix: > some files are purely MIT-licensed: gost28147.c, gosthash94.c. we should > either skip them or `AND MIT` Added AND MIT. > IMO should fix: > Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > gpgverify is not the first command in %prep. > nettle3.10.spec:33: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs > No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in -devel Fixed those. > Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. I'd leave them for now (with a bcond to opt-out); see below. > IMO should NOT fix: > rpmlint E: incorrect-fsf-address: filed > https://git.lysator.liu.se/nettle/nettle/-/work_items/16 > rpmlint W: hidden-file-or-dir: okay for fipshmac > nettle3.10.spec:124: E: rpm-buildroot-usage: I don't see what's wrong > with this kind of usage Haven't touched those. > Things unique for the compat package: > > > The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package > > can coexist in the distribution (or coexist between EPEL and RHEL). > > The package MUST be properly named according to the naming guidelines and > > MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. > > But this one has Conflicts: nettle-devel. > I'm not sure there's a way to satisfy this *and* ship -devel. > Can we omit -devel altogether for this compat package? > And docs, since we're at it? The issue is that there are API changes, which I'd expect applications to take some time to migrate. I added %bcond_without devel with comment to drop the -devel as soon as all the dependents are migrated to Nettle 4.0. > > Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > > Ditto. > > > If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > > Provides are present. > > Unsure if applies to compat packages, does it? As this package is deprecated from the start, I added "Provides: deprecated()" per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/. I hope it suffices the requirement. (In reply to Alexander Sosedkin from comment #7) > > some files are purely MIT-licensed: gost28147.c, gosthash94.c. we should > > either skip them or `AND MIT` > > on a second thought, MIT's GPL-compatible, so it's subsumed, isn't it? IIRC we were told not to interpret them, but to just list everything. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2443729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202443729%23c8 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
