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=526564 --- Comment #2 from Ionuț Arțăriși <mapleoin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-01 13:23:23 EDT --- Thanks for the review, Michael! > > I'm not a packager yet, but I have a sponsor > Really? This package needs a lot of love, since it isn't ready yet and doesn't > pass the guidelines > Btw, your sponsor must be the one to do the final package review: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer It's gotten a bit more complicated I think, since I've submitted more packages after I've found a sponsor for the calibre package. As I understood from my sponsor, he will watch all my submissions and reviews and help me get sponsored. > rpmlint is a bit scary > Well, it's more scary that you don't comment on those rpmlint warnings and > errors at all. Some of the errors found by rpmlint are obvious packaging > mistakes. You don't even ask any questions about that. Also run rpmlint on the > src.rpm. > Please become familiar with the Packaging Guidelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines > In particular take a look at > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries Sorry for not commenting on the rpmlint errors. I was actually looking for feedback as I didn't know what to do about all those errors. I knew what they meant, but I also falsely assumed that all tests provided by the package must be included in the final rpm. The package now removes all the tests after they are run. > But that's not the only problem. At the top of the list are misplaced files, > such as > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/collection.html > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/default.css > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/index.html > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/misc.html > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/mixin.html > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/setup-teardown.html > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/test-advanced.html > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/test.html Fixed. > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/unittest-devel-0.50/INSTALL > That one is irrelevant to RPM package end-users. I found nothing in the Guidelines saying that irrelevant files should be excluded, though I found a lot of INSTALL files that are written in a similar manner and included. Originally I followed the example of the eject.spec described in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo # yum provides */INSTALL|echo $((`wc -l`/7)) 553 > > %{__sed} -i 's|/usr/lib|%{buildroot}%{_libdir}|g' Makefile > That transformation breaks the build on 64-bit platforms where libdir is > /usr/lib64. Fixed. SPEC: http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/unittest/unittest.spec.1 SRPM: http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/unittest/unittest-0.50-62.2.fc11.src.rpm * Thu Oct 1 2009 Ionuț Arțăriși <mapleoin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.50-62.2 - don't include tests - move html docs to the right dir - add Provides: -static - fixed Group: - fixed /usr/lib problem for 64-bit systems in Makefile -- 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