https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282903
--- Comment #8 from Jan Chaloupka <jchal...@redhat.com> --- > General notes: > Line 127 of the .spec file's mention of "devel.file-list" should probably be > changed to "unit-test-devel.file-list". It is better to let the directory be owned by devel subpackage even if it contains files for unit-test-devel. Directories usually contain both devel and test files which would result in a directory owned be two different packages. The idea here is to let devel to own all directories up to some directories that are obviously only for testing, such as testdata, test_files, .... > I needed to change the definition of "with_unit_test" on line 6 from 1 to 0 to > get the build to succeed in mock because the package doesn't contain tests. Agree, the patch disables with_check and with_unit_test in the if branch. The current spec files disables both in else branch. > Does the devel subpackage benefit from including the non-license docs? Yes and no. Some *.md files can contain additional information for developer. But usually it helps to get a better picture of what the project is about and used for. As devel subpackages are used only for building atm and not for development, it does not. However, it does not hurt. > The empty %if/%endif at line 59 can probably just be removed. It is for future use. Once the project extends and new dependencies (not for main packages) are imported, it will be useful. The idea is to "Keep it there and just add BuildRequires later so you know where it belongs and don't have to write it down completely". The same holds for unit-test-devel. It could be deleted. But later, it will take more time to put it back. -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
