Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489233 --- Comment #10 from Denis Arnaud <denis.arnaud_fedora@xxxxxxx> 2009-03-25 20:16:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > Some macros cannot be disabled/commented like this. Here the %configure macro > is still executed twice. Safe is to replace '%' with '#'. [In %changelog, use > double '%%' when referring to macro names.] Thanks. I was indeed wondering why the configure script was running twice! So, I have suppressed the commented lines. > %define mydocs __tmp_docdir > > %install > ... > make install ... > ... > rm -rf %{mydocs} && mkdir %{mydocs} > mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/html %{mydocs} Thanks for those explanations: things appear now clearly. I have tried to copy html files into $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{mydocs} instead of into simply %{mydocs}, and tried the following two lines in the %files doc part: %doc %{_datadir}/%{mydocs}/html %{_datadir}/%{mydocs}/html but the html directory was then installed (understandably!) into /usr/share/%{mydocs}, instead of into %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} So, your work around works well as is. > [With that method, one pitfall remains, and that is related to applications > which expect the documentation files in the installed %docdir. One must be > careful not to move the files to a different location that doesn't match with > the paths compiled into the application/program executables.] For that package (RMOL), it should not be a problem, as the documentation package is just developer-oriented documentation, not meant to be used by any of the RMOL applications. > * The following change creates an "unowned directory": > > > -%{_includedir}/%{name} > > +%{_includedir}/%{name}/RMOL_Service.hpp > > +%{_includedir}/%{name}/RMOL_Types.hpp I have reverted to: %{_includedir}/%{name} (it is more elegant) > * spectool rmol.spec > Source0: http://download.sourceforge.net/rmol/rmol-0.19.0.tar.gz Fixed > > Tarball in the src.rpm doesn't match your upstream release! Fixed In summary, all those issues/errors have been corrected. But, a new warning has been introduced, due to the "BuildArch: noarch" directive in the "doc" package: rpmlint rmol.spec rmol.spec:104: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package %{_libdir}/lib*.so.* rmol.spec:111: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so rmol.spec:112: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}.pc 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. It may be a bug of rpmlint, as everything else goes as expected: the RPMs are correctly generated, and they get the right content. Awaiting for your feedback/approval. Denis -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review