https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Tissoires btissoir@redhat.com --- Updating the bug with my latest changes, I will need more upstream first before actually have a Fedora-ready package.
Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-rpm-v2/libratbag.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-rpm-v2/libratbag-0.2-1.fc...
(In reply to Peter Hutterer from comment #1)
summary should be capitalized correctly, it's currently a mix of upper and lowercase
done
no blank line after Summary
removed
That Source0 is a bit odd, looks like https://github.com/libratbag/libratbag/archive/v0.2.tar.gz is sufficient?
I used the ps2emu rename Lyude is making, but the way I do it in hid-replay is actually simpler: https://github.com/libratbag/%%7Bname%7D/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D...
BuildRequires: mtdev-devel?
oops, removed
IMO we should package libratbag/liblur as separate packages
OK. I tried to make it in this version: liblur gets its own package (-n in %package). It feels weird to not have a separate package for it, so I'd like some input here. An other solution is to not use the '-n' which gives libratbag-liblur as package name, which is less than optimal.
Typo in the last changelog msg, but best to compress them into a single "Initial package" with a -1 release anyway.
OK, done.
rpmlint says: libratbag.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-tools-remove-no-install-flag-for-lur-command.patch
That's because I use the "git am %{patches}" snippet :(
Anyway, I think I'll just release a new version of libratbag when upstream adds proper versioning for liblur and documentation of the 2 tools we provide (lur-command and ratbag-command).
Also, should I also build and ship the documentation we generate? (in a -doc package?)