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=496633 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-24 12:48:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > > monodevelop is being built on: > > ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparc alpha > > > Ok yes, using the monodevelop one, please check that my ExclusiveArch is ok > then, I remove the Build: noarch, that ok then? Yep, your ExclusiveArch line is fine now. > DONE, added the "sed" thing, don't quite sure about not make a mess with a > patch. > heh. You'll have to learn about diff and patch sooner or later since it's an integral part of package building but the sed line is fine for this package. > > > > * You need to bump the Release: field with every revision. Since you also want > > to add the disttag, the next release should be: > > Release: 2%{?dist} > not sure about what to do with this, I added that and package end with > fc10.rpm... Yep. %{?dist} is a macro. So when rpm builds the package on F-10, it expands Release: 2%{?dist} into: Release: 2.fc10 When you build on F-11 it expands to: Release: 2.fc11 and so on. > > * You need to add a %changelog entry to tell what you've done. the format is > > shown here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs > Ok I add a simple one, I try to put one in more details but as soon as I write > things like "Add sed to the %prep section.." or stuff like taht, rpmbuild claim > about thing tha he think that are "sections" and not take the text as just > comments even if put %prep in quotations.. > What happens is that macros/section headers are always expanded by rpmbuild. (Note: This happens even when the macro is commented out.) To get around that, escape the % with another %. So your changelog could look like: %changelog * Fri Apr 24 2009 Mauricio Henriquez <buhochileno@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.0 - Fix the install directory via sed in the %%prep section. > > monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: strange-permission > > monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0.tar.bz2 0755 > > > > * 0644 would be the normal permissions for a tarball. > Can this be fixed in the tarball on koji?, or I have to change the permission > of the tarball on the site that I put it? > This would be fixed by changing the permissions before you build the package/checkin the source. I got the tarball out of your source rpm originally. >> monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary >> monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib >> monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation > mmm, not sure what to do about this, is that a good or bad thing? (probably a bad one :-) In this case, these are false positives so they can all be ignored. The reason they're false positives for this package are written in comment #6 The only other thing I notice in the updated spec is the buildroot tag. If you look here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -- 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