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=511966 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-23 14:49:10 EDT --- Initial comments: * License - As far as I checked the whole source code, the license tag should be "LGPLv2+". * Description - You should not repeat the same description already written in the main package in every subpackage. * About Requires/BuildRequires - Usually "BuildRequires: pkgconfig" is redundant. Any -devel package containing .pc pkgconfig files should have "Requires: pkgconfig" or "Requires: /usr/bin/pkgconfig" and for example gtk2-devel has this. - Please explain why you want to add version specific dependency for ImageMagick-c++. Currently Fedora supports F-10/11/12 and the lowest version of ImageMagick in these branches is 6.4.0.10, ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires - (Related to the above "Explicit Requires"), "Requires: gtk2" for -gtk subpackage, and "Requires: qt > 4" for -qt subpackages are redundant (and should be removed). - Usually the dependency between packages rebuilt from the same srpm should be exact EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) specific ( for example -gtk should have "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}") ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package - -pygtk subpackage should depend on -gtk subpackage --------------------------------------------------------------- $ ldd -r ./zbarpygtk.so 2>/dev/null | grep zbargtk libzbargtk.so.0 => not found --------------------------------------------------------------- - The following line has typo. --------------------------------------------------------------- Provides: libzbarqt-static = {%version}-%{release} --------------------------------------------------------------- (should be %{version}) (but for static archives see below) * Conditional BR - build.log shows: --------------------------------------------------------------- 161 checking for xmlto... no 189 checking for X11/extensions/Xvlib.h... no --------------------------------------------------------------- * Please check if "BuildRequires: xmlto" is not needed. * Please consider to add "BuildRequires: libXv-devel" * Timestamps - Please consider to use --------------------------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" --------------------------------------------------------------- to keep timestamps on installed files as much as possible. This method usually works for Makefiles generated from recent autotools. * %files https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries - Please explain why you want to ship static archives (i.e. *.a files). Fedora strongly discourages this. Expecially as this package provides shared libraries currently I cannot figure out why these .a files are needed, ref: - libtool .la files must be removed (see the URL above) - Please use %{_mandir} instead of %{_datadir}/man : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros - Usually the file "INSTALL" is for people who want to build/install the package by themselves and not needed for people using rpm: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation - You don't have to install the document files already in main package also to every subpackage. - -devel subpackage should own %{_includedir}/zbar directory: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories - For -python subpackage, please don't use "%{_libdir}/python*" but use %{python_sitearch}, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture By the way please change the release number of your spec file every time you modify your package to avoid confusion. -- 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