Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:42:05 +0100
From: Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx>
To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Package review: SC - Script Collection
Message-ID: <ji1a4d$s5h$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Simon Erat wrote:
> What has been prepared so far:
> * http://sf.net/p/seasc (source code, in sub projects)
> * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795696 (review request)
> * http://sea.hostingsociety.com/rpm.sc.template.spec
> * http://sea.hostingsociety.com/changelog
> * http://sea.hostingsociety.com/sc-0.2.0.tar.gz (its a bash script,
> nothing to compile)
> * http://sea.hostingsociety.com/sc-0.2.0-2.fc16.noarch.rpm
First observations:
* Name is too short. A package with such a long history as "ed" can get away
with a 2-letter name, but yours not really. It's just asking for conflicts…
* The specfile name is not valid (should be %{name}.spec, not
rpm.%{name}.template.spec).
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
End of devel Digest, Vol 96, Issue 104
**************************************
* The rpm.sc.template is 'invalid' as that is the file i use as template, which will get CAT to makerpm's ~/rpmbuild/SPEC/sc.spec, and getting the changlelog appended.
This procedure can be reviewed in $scDir/system/dev.sc which contains the self-distributing code.
But since 'sc' is too short (it may, but does not yet) conflict other things, there has to be another %{name} anyway.
The project is currently located in a folder named "sc-fedora" which could be an alternative name either.
So either: ssc or scf (which i think already exists and therefore DOES conflict), or something i dont want the users to type: script-collection.
Anything of this acceptable /negotiateable?
Simon Erat
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
