https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791588
Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net> ---
Skipping all correct condition and focusing on fix.(In reply to Simone Caronni
from comment #11)
> - Package does not own files or directories owned by other
packages.
> Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/vapoursynth-
> libs(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed),
> /usr/share/licenses/vapoursynth-libs(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set,
> Failed), /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/VapourSynth-48-py3.8.egg-
> info(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed),
> /usr/include/vapoursynth(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed)
This is not correct, there is no overlap here. I also think fedora-review is
going bonkers ("locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed"??).
Let skip that part.
> - Use "autosetup -p1" for patches rather than "setup" or
"setup -q" and
> condition Patch1 for Fedora 32
I can not use autosetup as it would apply all patches regardless, so that's
why I used setup. Anyway I changed to the better upstream Python 3.8 patch
and I don't need a conditional anymore.
I looked at the spec and the patches work as intended.
> [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
> Note: Mock build failed
> See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
> guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
$ rpmlint vapoursynth.spec vapoursynth*.rpm
vapoursynth-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
vapoursynth-plugins.x86_64: W: no-documentation
vapoursynth-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
vapoursynth-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vspipe
10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
> [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
> Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
> attached diff).
> See: (this test has no URL)
Don't know where this comes from, but it's the same.
Fair enough.
Based on the overall review, the package is approved. Would you also follow the
suggestion from comment #14 ? Thanks.
--
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