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=510969 --- Comment #15 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-07-14 04:57:56 EDT --- A few comments: - You still need to fill in your whole name in Bugzilla. - I get the following output from rpmlint: valide.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valide/plugins/file-browser/libfile-browser.so valide.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valide/plugins/opened-documents/libopened-documents.so valide.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libvalide-0.0.so.0.5.1 valide.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valide/plugins/symbol/libsymbol.so valide.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valide/plugins/completion/libcompletion.so valide.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/valide/plugins/todo/libtodo.so valide.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/valide/licenses/None 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Check that you have the package "redhat-rpm-macros" installed on your system and add find %{buildroot}%{_libdir} -name *.so -exec chmod 755 {} \; to the end of install to give the .so files executable permissions so that rpmbuild picks them up and strips them. - Drop the explicit requires. rpm automatically picks up the requires on all of them. As an IDE this probably should Require: vala-devel though. The intltool requirement is OK. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires - The remove command should most likely be in %preun, since in the %postun phase the package has already been removed and %{_bindir}/%{name} doesn't exist anymore. Also, you should probably add some logic so that the commands aren't run when the package is upgraded. - The "%{_bindir}/%{name} --add" doesn't work. Upon installation of the RPM I get Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:valide ########################################### [100%] (valide:21124): Gtk-WARNING **: cannot open display: warning: %post(valide-0.5.1-278svn.0.3.fc11.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 - For consistency use %{_bindir}/valide in the files section instead of %{_bindir}/%{name}. - Unowned directories issues. Change %dir %{_libdir}/%{name} %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/* %{_datadir}/pixmaps/valide/* %{_datadir}/vala/vapi/* %{_datadir}/valide/* to %{_libdir}/%{name}/ %{_datadir}/pixmaps/valide/ %{_datadir}/vala/vapi/* %{_datadir}/valide/ in the main package and %{_includedir}/valide-0.5/* to %{_includedir}/valide-0.5/ in the -devel package. - You are placing icons in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/ so you must Require: hicolor-icon-theme. You must refresh the icon cache as instructed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache - Package doesn't build in mock due to missing BR desktop-file-utils. - Add Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to the -devel package. You don't have to duplicate the requires of the main package in the -devel package when there is a dependency chain. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package - You are mixing macros, which is forbidden. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS - Change all references to "./waf" to "./waf -v" to get debugging output. - Change ./waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --with-libdir=%{_libdir} to CFLAGS="%{optflags}" LINKFLAGS="%{optflags}" ./waf -v configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --with-libdir=%{_libdir} in order to get the Fedora optimization flags into use. - For consistency, change %defattr(-, root, root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) in the -devel package. - ldconfig is part of glibc, so I'd drop the Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig -- 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