30+%if 0%{?suse_version} > 1310 && 0%{?is_opensuse}
 31+BuildRequires:  cunit-devel
 32+%endif

is-opensuse should not be used, as it excludes (possibly future) SLE and can thus cause issues for Leap/

any distro that has suse_version > 1310 defined is openSUSE or SLE; so the is_opensuse condition should be implicit already,.

27+Source0: ftp://ftp.unidata.ucar.edu/pub/udunits/udunits-%{version}.tar.gz

based on that, the package should be called udunits; the version should not be part of the name (unless it's a compact package, but then the 'most recent version' generally is suffixless, and old versions introduced for compact get the old version as suffix

Dominique Leuenberger (dimstar) - over 3 years ago

reviewer

as for the name, upstreams seems to be quite messy themselves with what they provide as name. With this, I'd say udunits2 could be considered acceptable

135+%{_libdir}/libudunits2.so.*

This should be split out into a libudunits2-0 package, according to the shared library packaging policy (https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy)

Thanks for your review! - Renaming the package would be a bit unfortunate, as it is now 4 years in science repo and got several users, but not impossible of course. You are correct concerning the messy naming in upstream. - openSUSE: this would be actually a call for spec-cleaner. - it is quite possible that cunit is available in all supported packages nowadays, I will investigate. - I will look into splitting the package.

Should use --disable-static, then you don't need to remove .a afterwards.

Question: Do I need a %license tag in every sub-package? Some packages include this tag in every library sub-package, but not on the main package and not in the devel packages (e.g. hdf5), is this the way to go?