https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394
Sandro <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Sandro <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #5) > (In reply to Sandro from comment #4) > > Out of curiosity, why ship an empty OpenCTM meta package instead of making > > that package ship the desktop application, which has been split off into > > OpenCTM-viewer? > > I wanted to make it easy to install the CLI or the desktop application > individually, since neither naturally requires the other, but I also wanted > "dnf install OpenCTM" to bring in everything. That lead me to the > metapackage approach. Makes sense. I overlooked the part where the main package requires the individual sub packages. > > Since OpenCTM contains no files, shouldn't it be `noarch`? Not sure if > > that's possible, but it would get rid of `OpenCTM.x86_64: E: no-binary`, > > though not a goal by itself. > > We can have noarch subpackages with an arched base package, but not arched > subpackages with a noarch base package. > > (Technically, there is something arched about the OpenCTM metapackage, > because it has arched dependencies, e.g. OpenCTM-cli(x86-64), although a > hypothetical noarch version could drop the %{?_isa} and everything would > still be OK.) Right. I thought there might be some limitation, but wasn't quite sure. Thanks for the info. > > => Provides: bundled(xz-libs) = 4.65. I suppose the FPC exception is no > > longer required? > > Individual exemptions for each case of bundling are no longer required; I’m > operating under > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling, which > provides general rules for bundling. Technically, I didn’t contact upstream > about a path to unbundling, but also, the library is not only bundled but > also forked with an incompatible change, and this is baked into the CTM > format, so it’s pretty clear that unbundling will be infeasible. I probably stumbled upon that section before. Just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. Probably time to change (the wording of) that item in fedora-review. (In reply to Sandro from comment #2) > It looks like you've taken over development. ;) > > Looking at the spec file, the following appears to be a copy paste from the > devel sub package: > > %package doc > Summary: Development files for OpenCTM That can be fixed upon import. Package is APPROVED. I'll continue with `python-openctm` next. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274394 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202274394%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
