https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222
Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(dm4(a)secondstate.i
| |o)
--- Comment #15 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com> ---
@dm4(a)secondstate.io see inline ..
(In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #13)
Issues:
=======
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
Looking at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages ,
any unversioned shared library files should
be listed in the `-devel` package, while versioned lib files are better off in
the main package itself.
Currently, `rpm -ql wasmedge-lib-0.10.0-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm` shows:
/usr/lib64/libwasmedge_c.so
/usr/lib64/wasmedge
/usr/lib64/wasmedge/libwasmedgePluginWasmEdgeProcess.so
Perhaps we should have versioned shared libraries with the unversioned ones as
symlinks? The former could go into the main package and the latter in the
-devel package.
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: WasmEdge-0.10.0.spec should be wasmedge.spec
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_spec_file_naming
The package name should exactly match the value against the `Name:` field in
the spec file.
So, please use either `WasmEdge` or `wasmedge`. Once you've finalized that,
please also update the name in the Summary section of this bugzilla.
Once these 2 issues are sorted, I'll go ahead with the rest of the review steps
manually.
Thanks.
--
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=2035222