[Bug 2023307] Review Request: libnetconf2 - NETCONF protocol library

2022-01-20 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023307 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Ruzicka --- Thank you for your constructive review as well as cool tips on howto handle this on other RPM-based distros ❤ The package built for rawhide. I'll try to fix tests with upstream and enable all of them, a

[Bug 2023307] Review Request: libnetconf2 - NETCONF protocol library

2022-01-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023307 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libnetconf2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and comp

[Bug 2023307] Review Request: libnetconf2 - NETCONF protocol library

2022-01-17 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023307 Petr Menšík changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNE

[Bug 2023307] Review Request: libnetconf2 - NETCONF protocol library

2022-01-17 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023307 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Ruzicka --- OK, I've updated the .spec in-place per your instructions: - use %cmake macros (-> different .spec for EL/SUSE :'( ) - drop make dep - better Source URL - include *.md docs using %doc - make -devel requir

[Bug 2023307] Review Request: libnetconf2 - NETCONF protocol library

2022-01-11 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023307 --- Comment #7 from Petr Menšík --- EPEL 7 is quite old these days. New package should not start today with standard of EPEL7 package. At least for EPEL 8 all macros should behave very close to current Fedora best practices. EPEL 7 would prob

[Bug 2023307] Review Request: libnetconf2 - NETCONF protocol library

2022-01-10 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023307 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Ruzicka --- Hello Petře and thank you for your review. > Is there reason, why is not %cmake macro used instead of manual cmake? I've started with that following fedora docs, but it wasn't working on EL/EPEL 7. Inste

[Bug 2023307] Review Request: libnetconf2 - NETCONF protocol library

2022-01-07 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023307 --- Comment #5 from Petr Menšík --- I would suggest using Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz spectool -g *.spec would name downloaded archive in a nicer way, just prepared to upload by fedpkg new-sources. -- You a

[Bug 2023307] Review Request: libnetconf2 - NETCONF protocol library

2022-01-07 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023307 Petr Menšík changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pemen...@redhat.com Flags|

[Bug 2023307] Review Request: libnetconf2 - NETCONF protocol library

2022-01-07 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023307 --- Comment #2 from Petr Menšík --- Also setting Release should not be used. We want debug symbols extracted in separate (sub)package. Because it uses cmake, use something like: %build %cmake %cmake_build %install %cmake_install That woul

[Bug 2023307] Review Request: libnetconf2 - NETCONF protocol library

2022-01-07 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023307 Petr Menšík changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pemen...@redhat.com Doc Type|--