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=505155 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-06-11 08:53:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > wrt to comment #1 item 1, power supply on that server burned up and hasn't been > replaced. Updated the spec file to point to my people page for now. Items 2-4 > are also fixed. For item 5, all example rpms that I looked at have the .so file > in /lib64 if the library is there also. Is there a guideline that says this is > wrong or something bad that will happen if I don't? IOW, what are the problems > caused by leaving it in /lib64? That's not a standard location according to FHS. You have been looking only at some core utilities spec files, everything else installs the libraries in %{_libdir}. Using %{_lib} for anything else is forbidden. > wrt to comment #2 item 1, No. Item 2 is fixed. Item 3, I like explicit > attributes so that when I look at the specfile I know exactly how everything is > going to land just in case there is a mistake in the make files. (I can point > to bz on the prelude stack where explicit perms would have prevented doing > security errata.) But the normal umasks set by the build environment are fine. > Item 5, I don't see any spec files doing this. Why would > build-time timestamps be important? I can see the reason for multilib timestamp > coordination for shared resources, but why would I need to do this? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps It's a guideline and thus mandatory. Files that aren't generated in the build (e.g. the header file) need to keep their time stamps. This package will also be multilib, won't it? > Thanks for the review comments. I posted a new spec file to the same place as > above, but won't update the srpm until later today after I put some man pages > in the tarball and do an official release. You didn't increment the release, which you should do whenever making revisions. -- 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