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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-12 10:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17) > * package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. > > It amuses me that meeting the packaging guidlines is an item within the > packaging guidelines checklist The package review guidelines is not actually a checklist of things in the packaging guidelines. The packaging guidelines as a whole encompasses a bunch of pages on the wiki (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging), which include the main packaging guidelines, the package naming guidelines, plus a number of pages on language-specific guidelines. Extras contributors are expected to have read the main packaging and naming guidelines and be familar with them (committing them all to memory isn't expected but it's worth re-reading them from time to time as a refresher and to catch up with changes). The review guidelines page just includes a checklist of things that apply to most packages. > * All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those > as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. > > Some BRs are specified, I have not checked the list is exhaustive Building the package in mock is a good way to test this. > * If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this > fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of > that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. > > no such statement, assume this is correct. This relates to the use of the "Prefix:" rpm tag. If present, the package is telling rpm that it's supposed to be relocatable (whether it actually is or not depends on how the rest of the package is built). Some packagers tend to include the "Prefix:" tag because they've copied the spec from some template that included it. This check is there to catch that mistake. > * A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. > > ok, all files explicitly listed, no wildcards used at all > would it be considered neater to use %{_libdir}/streamer/*.so instead? This check is looking for instances of the same file being installed in multiple different places (e.g. a README installed in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} and also %{datadir}/%{name}) rather than being included more than once in the %files list (which rpmbuild will warn about actually). (In reply to comment #20) > (In reply to comment #19) > > > - Added wildcard in files section > > I was genuinely asking if it would be better to use the wildcard, or have the > multiple single files, I'd be interested to see an answer from an experienced > reviewer on this ... This is really a matter of personal preference and may vary from package to package. In general I like to enumerate all of the files individually, particularly for binaries, as this results in unpackaged file errors if you build a later version of the package that contains additional files, something that you really should know about as the new files might clash with some other package. An alternative approach here would be to use rpmdiff to compare old and new packages. For some packages though, the list of files would simply be unmanagable if done individually, so using a wildcard is the only sane option. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review