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=486804 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-02 16:12:31 EDT --- Some notes: * Versioning - Well, I cannot understand why your spec file has excessively large release number and I don't think this large release number is needed. If this release number comes from some reasons unrelated to Fedora, please reset this. - Also, please consider to use %{?_dist} tag. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag * Licensing - The license tag should simply be "GPLv2+". src/Extensions.cpp is under GPLv2+, libferrisloki.so uses .libs/Extensions.o, which renders libferrisloki.so to be under GPLv2+, so other license tag is useless. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 192 libtool: compile: g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -I/usr/include -I./../include/FerrisLoki -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0 -I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -MT Extensions.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/Extensions.Tpo -c Extensions.cpp -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/Extensions.o 213 libtool: link: g++ -shared -nostdlib /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1/../../../crti.o /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1/crtbeginS.o .libs/Extensions.o .libs/OrderedStatic.o .libs/SafeFormat.o .libs/Singleton.o .libs/SmallObj.o .libs/SmartPtr.o .libs/StrongPtr.o -lsigc-2.0 -L/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1 -L/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1/../../.. -lstdc++ -lm -lc -lgcc_s /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1/crtendS.o /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1/../../../crtn.o -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=both -Wl,-soname -Wl,libferrisloki.so.3 -o .libs/libferrisloki.so.3.0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------- * BuildRoot - BuildRoot currently used in your spec file is not valid on Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag ! Note On currently supported Fedora version (Fedora 10/11/12), you can simply BuildRoot line completely. * URL - Perhaps http://witme.sourceforge.net/ is better? * BuildRequires - BR: gcc-c++ is redundant: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 * About %build - From build.log: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 + ./configure --build=i386-redhat-linux-gnu --host=i386-redhat-linux-gnu --target=i686-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/var/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --with-sigcxx-2x=yes 45 configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --with-sigcxx-2x ------------------------------------------------------------------- is "--with-sigcxx-2x" needed? - tarball contains include/FerrisLoki/loki/, i.e. this package uses internal copy of loki, however on Fedora loki is already packaged: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/loki-lib http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=4740 This package (ferrisloki) should be patched to use system-wide loki-lib and include/FerrisLoki/loki/ should be removed at %prep. * %files - Fedora strongly suggests not to include static archives (.a files) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries - The directory %{_includedir}/FerrisLoki itself is not owned by any packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Forgetting_to_Include_a_Toplevel_Directory * pkgconfig file - ferrisloki.pc says (on i686, rawhide): --------------------------------------------------- 6 Name: ferrisloki 7 Description: Version of standard loki library with extensions. 8 Version: 3.0.2 9 Requires: 10 Libs: -L${libdir} -lferrisloki -lsigc-2.0 11 Cflags: -I${includedir} -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki/loki -I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0 -I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include --------------------------------------------------- This should be changed to: --------------------------------------------------- Name: ferrisloki Description: Version of standard loki library with extensions. Version: 3.0.2 Requires: sigc++-2.0 Libs: -L${libdir} -lferrisloki Cflags: -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki/loki --------------------------------------------------- * Requires (for -devel subpackage) - For example FerrisLoki/BoostExtensions.hh contains: --------------------------------------------------- 53 #include <boost/config.hpp> 54 #include <boost/mpl/integral_c.hpp> 55 #include <boost/mpl/integral_c_tag.hpp> --------------------------------------------------- This package means that ferrisloki-devel should have "Requires: boost-devel". * Requires between subpackages - Usually the dependency between packages rebuilt from the same srpm should have exact EVR (Epoch-Version-Release). i.e. ferrislock-devel should have "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}", not just "Requires: %{name} >= %{version}": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package -- 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