Michael Schwendt wrote:
Let me point out some things here instead of posting this in bugzilla:
Thanks for taking the time
The ticket is assigned to you instead of the default dummy owner of
Package Review tickets. This may be misunderstood by anyone who browses
the FE-NEW list, looking for "unassigned" package reviews.
My mistake
Some of the package revisions look half-hearted, though.
I'm a little but stumped by what you mean there, some of them have been
a little minor, but I thought incremental was good when learning?
If a reviewer supplies a patch against your .spec, accept it or refuse it
and discuss the reason.
I know what you mean there, I did rather ignore the patch submitted, but
only because I'd already found my own way around some of the issues I
was having.
Taking a brief look at your latest package:
$ rpmlint eiciel-0.9.2-4.src.rpm
E: eiciel hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/debug/%{_bindir}/%{name}.debug
E: eiciel hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/debug/%{_libdir}/nautilus/extensions-1.0/lib%{name}*.debug
Originally I had used macros, but I found that I *HAD* to hardcode that
path, as it worked on x86 with macros, but failed on x86_64 as the files
do not go into /usr/lib64/debug/usr/lib64 but into
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64, perhaps I'm unaware of a macro that expands
to /usr/lib on all platforms?
Or perhaps eiciel's make install has placed them in the wrong location,
and i should be correcting for that?
I had been checking with rpmlint on RPMs and SRPM, and had got rid of
all errors/warnings, obviously I failed to rpmlint again after my final
change.
This smells like "packager confusion". Right now I can't take the time to
read all 17 comments in the review ticket (writing all this probably has
taken more, but well, ...). There is cleanup in the spec file needed. The
debug files need not be excluded at all.
I was told (though not by an Extras contributor) that it was best to not
package them
They are not included in your
package unless you include them explicitly or recursively (e.g. by
including %_libdir which in turn would be a packaging mistake).
I thought I was aiming for the minimum number of includes (and
optionally excludes) to catch all files that make install processed,
BuildRequires: nautilus
Although this works, you really want "nautilus-devel", the virtual
package for the Nautilus extension development files.
"Nautilus" is written with upper-case 'N', so I would do the same
in the package %description.
ok
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*
With this, the directory %{_datadir}/%{name} would not be included in
your package. Listing the binary rpm confirms it:
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/eiciel/doc
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/eiciel/doc/C
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/eiciel/doc/C/eiciel.xml
The fix is this %files entry:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
This includes the directory and the entire tree in it. The explicit slash
at the end makes the .spec file easier to read. You see immediately that
this entry includes a directory [recursively], instead of a single file.
The package listing will look like (notice the top dir!):
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/eiciel
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/eiciel/doc
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/eiciel/doc/C
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/eiciel/doc/C/eiciel.xml
Hadn't realised the distinction in wildcards
Summary: Eiciel graphical access control list editor
Better:
Summary: Graphical access control list (ACL) editor
In wide parts of the RPM packaging world and for the majority of packages,
it is considered bad taste to repeat or mention an application's name in
the Summary. There is the package name "eiciel", which is very likely
displayed together with the summary. And for anyone who doesn't know that
"Eiciel" is a name, above summary is confusing. The one important thing to
mention is the summary is to give a brief description of what this package
does: it provides a graphical access control list editor. Everything
beyond that can go into the %description.
ok
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/applications/eiciel.desktop
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/applications/fedora-eiciel.desktop
Two desktop entries. The one that appeared here in the menu does not work:
Could not launch menu item
Details: Failed to execute child process
"/home/roger/eiciel/TEST/bin/eiciel" (No such file or directory)
This indicates that you either want to remove "eiciel.desktop" or use it
as the source for "desktop-file-install", adding vendor and your own
changes, and using --delete-original to get rid of it.
I wasn't too clear about .desktop files, I should have asked about my
use of desktop-file-install particularly about "vendor" and
"add-category", I was just following what I could see elsewhere.
Thanks again, I'll give it a brush up later ...
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
