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=496635 --- Comment #39 from Mauricio Henriquez <buhochileno@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-08 17:10:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #37) > Hey Mauricio, > > the upstream tarball build well in mock. What have you tried and whats your > system? Fedora 10 2.6.27.15-170.2.24.fc10.i686, rpm tools: rpm-4.6.0-2.fc10.i386 rpmrebuild-2.3-1.fc10.noarch rpm-devel-4.6.0-2.fc10.i386 rpm-build-4.6.0-2.fc10.i386 rpm-apidocs-4.6.0-1.fc10.i386 rpmdevtools-7.0-1.fc10.noarch rpm-libs-4.6.0-2.fc10.i386 (btw, the diff between your tarball and the official one shows no > changes at mono.debugging.backend.mdb.pc.in) yeap, I try it again, I have to add version info (Version: 2.0) in mono.debugging.backend.mdb.pc.in file, due to that, I only attach you the .spec file, becouse I can't generate the src.rpm package: rpmbuild: rpmfc.c:407: rpmfcHelper: Assertion `EVR != ((void *)0)' failed. Aborted I find it as a bug in rpmbuild tools, can't find the link now, To generate the src.rpm package I need to modifie sources and since that package is not going to have original upstream source tarbal.... > s the version of > To version numbers: > Every version of your package needs an unique identifier. We use a > [project-version]-[package-release] form, where [project-version] is the > version of the upstream project and [package-release] the version of the > package (which starts from 1 for each new upstream version btw) > > The release number at the beginning of the spec-file should be the same as the > latest changelog entry. Because of this I said we should take three, because > there currently are 3 entries. We could replace them by one, then we would set > release number to 1 again. I would support that, maybe with a text like this: > * Thu Jun 04 2009 Mauricio Henriquez <buhochileno@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.0-1 > - Initial packaging with help by Ryan Bair > > Hope this makes things clearer for you!? dummy me!! :-) , yeap sure, have prefect sense for me now, sorry :-S, think that this time is going to be ok.. > > Furthermore could we have a better package description? > I prefer not, that is the original upstream description that is showed in diferent places, don't want to put some mistake in there , and is quite clear to me actually.. > Thanks for your work! your wellcome.. > Paul Mauricio -- 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