Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: monodoc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900 ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-02-03 19:44 EST ------- Hi, > # rpmlint -v RPMS/i386/monodoc-1.1.9-2.i386.rpm > I: monodoc checking > E: monodoc no-binary > E: monodoc only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > There are binaries, but it's probably because they're .NET ones instead of standard ELF one which are causing the false positive. > W: monodoc no-documentation > > Ironic! There is some external documentation, but it requires mod-mono and xsp to be installed and as the package works fine without those extras, I felt it was better to exclude them. I will include them if needs be. > # rpmlint -v SRPMS/monodoc-1.1.9-2.src.rpm > I: monodoc checking > E: monodoc hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/mono/gac > E: monodoc hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib > > within %install any reason you've used some with /usr/lib instead of %{_libdir} ? > e.g. > %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/pkgconfig > %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}/usr/lib/mono/gac You have to. By default, all that is mono installs to /usr/lib. Now, if I'm on an x86_64 or any other non-32 bit architecture, %{_libdir} is /usr/lib64. This breaks a lot of stuff under Mono (from what I've seen). Please see my bit on the fedorawiki on packaging for mono. > - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. > NOT CHECKED It should ;-) > - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible > license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of > Packaging Guidelines. > > "COPYING" file shows GPL > If REDHAT can't comment about legal matters on mono/.net I'm sure I'm not > qualified to :-( > In general found individual sorce fiels didn't have licence info contained Mono itself is a right mix of licences. monodoc is GPL. I can't comment on the legal cloud around RH allowing mono in, but if a licence says GPL (or LGPL, BSD or the likes), then I'm good with it. > No %doc in %files, shoul dit be added and COPYING placed there? Yes. As should AUTHORS and a couple of others. > - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms > on at least one supported architecture. > > > OK for me on i386 > FAILED to compile for me on x86_64 (likely flaky mono on my machine beagle is > acting up to) Which version of mono have you got on the 64 bit box? I'm on 1.1.3 and it compiled without a hitch. > - MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. > > SEEMED OK, I had to install mono-devel Good :-) > - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using > the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > > > NO /locale/* files at all, not sure if monodoc has any i18n at all I can't see any. > - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the > dynamic linker's default paths, > > No .so files, whether it needs to do anything similar with it's .dll files I > don't know .NET doesn't use .so (as such). Again, see my piece on the fedora wiki for packaging for mono > - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the > base package using a fully versioned dependency. > > > No separate -devel As such, there aren't really devel packages for mono (other than mono-devel that is!) > - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a > %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with > desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the > desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged > GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the > spec file with your explanation. > > > No .desktop file, unclear to me now if monodocs actually displays docs, in GUI, > or just prepares thenm for later display, or browser based display. monodoc is used inside of monodevelop and won't run outside of it. > - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > > not done I can't get mock to work, so I just compile it on the laptop and x86_64 box! > Installed ok in i386 machine that was used to build > no info how to start, or what it should do > I tried "mono mod.exe" at least it gave a polite error rather than crashing monodoc is not designed to work standalone. Thanks for the feedback -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
