https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678233
Jan Pazdziora <jpazdzi...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jpazdzi...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Jan Pazdziora <jpazdzi...@redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #2)
> > %define unmangled_version 0.6.5
> > %define unmangled_version 0.6.5
>
> Any reason to define it twice?
>
> > %define name rpm2swidtag
> > %define version 0.6.5
> > %define release 1%{dist}
>
> Any reason to define them when it is not used? BTW every tag will define a
> corresponding macro. So Name will define %name. So this has no use because
> it is overridden by a tag below.
No, these should go -- it's a leftover from the original setup.py-generated
spec that I missed.
> > Summary: Tools for producing SWID tags from rpm package headers and
> > inspecting the SWID tags
>
> The summary should be shorter than 80 characters. Can you try to make it a
> bit shorter?
Sure, will make it into
Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags
> > Release: 1%{dist}
>
> This should be `1%{?dist}` so it produces valid output in case of dist macro
> is not defined.
Fixed.
> > Group: Development/Libraries
>
> This tag has no use and it should be removed.
Removed.
> > BuildRequires: fakeroot
>
> It would be nice if you can separate aside - with a comment - the
> buildrequires which are needed only for %check section.
OK. The only "real" BuildRequires are python3-setuptools and
python3-rpm-macros, it seems.
> > %package -n dnf-plugin-swidtags
>
> I would advise putting "Recommend: dnf" in this sub-package.
OK.
> > %clean
> > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> This section is not used nowadays and should be removed entirely.
OK.
>
> > --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> Use macros consistently. Either old style or the new style. I recommend to
> use `--root=%{buildroot}`
OK.
> > # %license LICENSE
>
> Any reason why LICENSE is not included in tar ball? Especially when you are
> upstream as well?
Because with the 0.6.5 upstream release, the LICENSE is not packages in the
.tar.gz. Fix for that is in https://github.com/swidtags/rpm2swidtag master but
I'm waiting for one more thing from the rpm team to make a new release. By that
time I plan to uncomment this line.
> You are missing
> %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}
> in %files.
Fixed.
> Who owns `%{_sysconfdir}/swid/` and `/usr/share/swidq` ? Hint - it should be
> either you or some your dependency.
# rpm -qf /etc/swid
fedora-release-common-30-0.21.noarch
Not sure if it's better to add the dependency on just add my ownership on that
file (or move the swidq.conf to something like /etc/swidq/ altogether).
> > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf.d
>
> You probably meant:
>
> %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf.d
> %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf.d/*
True.
> > %{_bindir}/rpm2swidtag
> > %{_bindir}/swidq
>
> It would be really nice if you can write a man page for these two.
Would you envision anything more that the relevant parts from
https://github.com/swidtags/rpm2swidtag/blob/master/README.md? What is the
recommended way of producing man pages from Markdown, for rpms?
> You are missing a %changelog section.
Will be added.
> All python modules should BuildRequire python3-devel
OK. That would then be the only non-test BuildRequire.
> > %{__python3} setup.py build
>
> You should use %py3_build macro.
Fixed.
> > %{__python3} setup.py install --single-version-externally-managed
> > --single-version-externally-managed -O1 --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > --record=INSTALLED_FILES
>
> You should use %py3_install plus some custom option if needed.
Fixed.
I've now updated https://adelton.fedorapeople.org/rpm2swidtag.spec based on the
review, except for the man pages.
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
