Overview
Request 673300 superseded
- Switch to meson buildsystem:
* Update Git-clone/web to new gitlab home.
* Add meson BuildRequires and macros.
* Add fdupes BuildRequires and macros, remove duplicate files.
* Rename libdrm-tools to drm-tools, follow openSUSE packaging
guidelines and silence a rpmlint warning. Add Obsoletes and
Provides to ensure smooth upgrades.
* Tweak descriptions for several sub-packages.
* Drop custom test install and run, run plain meson_test provided
by upstream.
- Created by sndirsch
- In state superseded
- Superseded by 673473
-
Open review for
repo-checker
- Open review for openSUSE:Factory:Staging:C
Request History
sndirsch created request
- Switch to meson buildsystem:
* Update Git-clone/web to new gitlab home.
* Add meson BuildRequires and macros.
* Add fdupes BuildRequires and macros, remove duplicate files.
* Rename libdrm-tools to drm-tools, follow openSUSE packaging
guidelines and silence a rpmlint warning. Add Obsoletes and
Provides to ensure smooth upgrades.
* Tweak descriptions for several sub-packages.
* Drop custom test install and run, run plain meson_test provided
by upstream.
factory-auto added opensuse-review-team as a reviewer
Please review sources
factory-auto added repo-checker as a reviewer
Please review build success
factory-auto accepted review
Check script succeeded
licensedigger accepted review
ok
namtrac accepted review
staging-bot set openSUSE:Factory:Staging:C as a staging project
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:C"
staging-bot accepted review
Picked openSUSE:Factory:Staging:C
superseded by 673473
The upstream tarball is libdrm, so libdrm-tools makes sense, irrespective of rpmlint complaining. Not sure what they intended with that git repo/project name except spreading confusion…
@jengelh So should I revert this renaming or keep it? Honestly I don't care ...
Maybe upstream could give some input as to what they actually want the project name to be, because right now it looks ambiguous.
The minimal option is to just leave everything as-is and not give libzypp more alternatives to resolve.
I'm afraid upstream simply doesn't care about packaging details. I went back to the old name scheme libdrm-tools.