https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262694
--- Comment #81 from Luya Tshimbalanga <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #79) > Issues: > ======= > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: materialx-data : > /usr/share/materialx/stdlib/genosl/include/color4.h materialx-data : > /usr/share/materialx/stdlib/genosl/include/matrix33.h materialx-data : > /usr/share/materialx/stdlib/genosl/include/mx_funcs.h materialx-data : > /usr/share/materialx/stdlib/genosl/include/vector2.h materialx-data : > /usr/share/materialx/stdlib/genosl/include/vector4.h > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_devel_packages > > > nit: These are just demo files, should we still ship them? These demo files are removed. # Remove demo devel files rm -rvf %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/stdlib/genosl/include > > > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses/materialx > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses/materialx, > /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages, /usr/lib64/python3.14 > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > Make sure all required license files are shipped with the package. > Use the contents of the licensecheck.txt to add a breakdown of which files > are licensed by which license in the spec. > Fix the ownership of /usr/share/licenses/materialx > Fixed. %license should take care of ownership. I am unsure how to properly address that issue. > > [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > > Explicitly disabling 32bit, which is fine. > > > Once you address the above APPROVED > > BuildError: The following noarch package built differently on different > architectures: materialx-data-1.39.4-1.fc44.noarch.rpm > rpmdiff output was: > removed REQUIRES materialx(x86-64) = 1.39.4-1.fc44 > added REQUIRES materialx(aarch-64) = 1.39.4-1.fc44 Reverted the previous change to noarch. Here is the new update: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09904575-materialx/materialx.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09904575-materialx/materialx-1.39.4-1.fc44.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262694 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202262694%23c81 -- _______________________________________________ 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
