On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:04:22 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> What do you find misleading about the review?
It has discussed headers that are not installed anywhere. I expected
to find a spec file that either deletes headers from the buildroot or
includes them in a non-devel package to begin with. In
On 14/03/17 19:04 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 22:55 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The review is highly misleading, and the latest spec file does not
include any headers in the package:
%files
%license COPYING
%doc EXTENDING.html FAQ NEWS README
%{_bindir}/arduino-c
On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 22:55 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The review is highly misleading, and the latest spec file does not
> include any headers in the package:
>
> %files
> %license COPYING
> %doc EXTENDING.html FAQ NEWS README
> %{_bindir}/arduino-ctags
> %{_mandir}/man1/arduino-c
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:34:16 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> During a package review[0], I suggested that a CLI application's header
> files need to go into a -devel subpackage (they are currently not being
> packaged, except for the -debuginfo subpackage.) The reviewer
> disagrees, but fedora-review
Hello!
During a package review[0], I suggested that a CLI application's header
files need to go into a -devel subpackage (they are currently not being
packaged, except for the -debuginfo subpackage.) The reviewer
disagrees, but fedora-review uses the word must. I went to the
packaging guidelines[1
