Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rpm-local-generator-support.git/plain/rpm-local-generator-support.spec?id=469fcda122c5856dc10bae4cb75daee0cdf61d15 SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rpm-local-generator-support-1-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: local_generator.attr file enabling RPM dependency generator to be used on .spec files, which ships them. Fedora Account System Username: vondruch Please note that this RPM supports my idea described in more detail here: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/3MHROKOM53HM6NF7RGGLFBIQFG5IEIQG/
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107593752
The package cannot be simpler, but it can be better. :) > Release:1%{?dist} Please add space after : > License: MIT The guidelines say: If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. And because you are the upstream, you should be encouraged to include the license text. Likely as SourceX. But none of the things above justify blocking the review. APPROVED
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #2) > The package cannot be simpler, but it can be better. :) > > > Release:1%{?dist} Good catch > Please add space after : > > > License: MIT > > The guidelines say: > If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the > packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. > > And because you are the upstream, you should be encouraged to include the > license text. Likely as SourceX. Thx for contacting me ;) I was kind of thinking about omitting the license, because .spec are MIT by default, aren't they? And actually, I don't know if the empty file is even licensable/copyrightable? > But none of the things above justify blocking the review. > > APPROVED Thx a lot.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpm-local-generator-support
Should this either depend on rpm or co-own %{_fileattrsdir}? ---- > The package can't be simpler. %autorelease maybe? :D
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #5) > Should this either depend on rpm or co-own %{_fileattrsdir}? Good question! Looking for prior art, it seems that the ownership or dependency on RPM are not standard. But we could have generator for the RPM dependency! > ---- > > > The package can't be simpler. > > %autorelease maybe? :D There are some gaps.