https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336008
Rob Crittenden <rcrit...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|ape...@redhat.com |rcrit...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Rob Crittenden <rcrit...@redhat.com> ---
I'm confused about the naming. Why not put the _bindir files into
keycloak-httpd-client-install and keep the python parts in subpackages or is it
because it would be confusing to install a subpackage to get the top-level
package? It would seem better to me to put the common things into
keycloak-httpd-client-install and leave the python parts broken out.
License does match source, MIT vs GPLv3
rm %{buildroot}/usr/bin/keycloak-httpd-client-install
should be
rm %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/keycloak-httpd-client-install
man pages should not be %doc
man page is not installed in python3 subpackage
Missing %dir for %{_datadir}/python-%{srcname}
Issues with man page (man --warnings keycloak-httpd-client-install.8
>/dev/null)
<standard input>:8: warning: macro `Bkeycloak-httpd-client-install' not defined
<standard input>:174: warning: macro `BDetermining' not defined
Not sure I like the glob for _bindir given there is a single file. Why not just
list the one file?
Did upstream release 0.2 include only the man page? Wondering if the upgrade to
upstream should also be mentioned in changelog.
--
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
