Hi all Just modified the gsequencer.spec file. Now, it should be more the fedora way. https://sourceforge.net/projects/ags/files/fedora/ Additionally, I uploaded the srpm and rpm packages built. * gsequencer * gsequencer-devel * gsequencer-devel-docs * gsequencer-debuginfo Bests, Joël On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:21:21 +0100, Joël Krähemann wrote: >> >> > My name is Joël Krähemann. I maintain Advanced Gtk+ Sequencer and I'd >> > like to provide it in fedora. Linux is my OS of choice since 2001. >> > Along the time I have used many distributions like debian, linux from >> > scratch, SUSE, fedora and a few others. >> >> Hello! >> >> Here find some helpful links about the Fedora Packager and their processes: >> >> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers >> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers >> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group >> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process > > In particular, you should open a Review request for gsequencer as the next > step. > > From a quick view at the spec file: > Source0 should be a full URL > > '-n gsequencer' is a noop, just drop it for readability. > Similarly, %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} → %setup -q > or oven just %autosetup. > > In %files: > %{_libdir}/gsequencer/* → %{_libdir}/gsequencer > (you need to "own" the directory too). > Similarly in %{_datadir}, if you run rpmlint I'm pretty sure it'll complain > about unowned directories. > > In general, it's better to put each Requires/BuildRequires item on it's own > line. Diffs looks better and it's easier to spot mistakes. > > No dots at the end of Summary. > > Some of the explicit dependencies, e.g. Requires: libags, are most > likely uneeded — rpm generates dependencies on libraries automatically. > > Also, I'm not sure you need so many subpackages: it's not Debian > where every teeny-tiny library needs a separate subpackage. In particular, > you can at least merge all the -devel subpackages into one. > > But the package looks nice in general. Should not be an issue to get > it accepted. > > Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
