https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
CC| |ppisar(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> ---
The URLs lead to HTML files. Could you please provide a Spec URL to the spec
file, like <
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aysabzevar/v-rpm/main/v.spec> and
do the same with SRPM URL?
I briefly looked in to the spec file and I have three remarks:
- Upstream has 0.3 version. Could you update this package use that version? I
guess you are not going to update this package every week, and then it makes
sense to package the releases version. Not a weekly snapshot. Then the Source
address should also use that version, like
<
https://github.com/vlang/v/archive/refs/tags/0.3.zip>.
- The CC command in %build phase does not use distribution-wide compiler flags
($RPM_OPT_FLAGS) and linker flags ($RPM_LD_FLAGS). Even if it's an intermediary
program, it would be great to use them.
- The spec file claims MIT license. But %files section nowhere packages a
license file with %license macro. MIT license requires copying the license text
alongside binary executables.
--
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=2042701