Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libvtemm - C++ bindings for vte https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527241 Summary: Review Request: libvtemm - C++ bindings for vte Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ReportedBy: qdlacz@xxxxxxxxx QAContact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: notting@xxxxxxxxxx, fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://krnowak.fedorapeople.org/libvtemm.spec SRPM URL: http://krnowak.fedorapeople.org/libvtemm12-0.22.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: libvtemm provides a C++ interface to the VTE library. spec file is based on gtkmm.spec from http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/gtkmm24/devel/gtkmm.spec?revision=1.57 (this is last revision). package builds on koji on all architectures. rpmlint output on spec (libvtemm.spec): 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint output on srpm (libvtemm12-0.22.0-1.fc11.src.rpm): libvtemm12.src: E: invalid-spec-name 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Same error is displayed while checking gtkmm24 srpm. Should package be named just libvtemm or spec renamed to libvtemm12 - its API version is 1.2. I left it in this state just to be consistent with other *mm packages (gtkmm24, glibmm24). rpmlint output on main package (libvtemm12-0.22.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm): 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint output on debuginfo package (libvtemm12-debuginfo-0.22.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm): 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint output on devel package (libvtemm12-devel-0.22.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm): libvtemm12-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I put all not installed documentation (AUTHORS, NEWS, ChangeLog and such) in main package. API docs are in separate package. Maybe in later upstream release of libvtemm example source codes will be distributed, so they would be put into documentation of devel package. rpmlint output on docs package (libvtemm12-docs-0.22.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm): libvtemm12-docs.i686: E: devel-dependency libvtemm12-devel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Having API docs without devel package does not make much sense. I only was wondering if moving whole API documentation to gtk-doc directory is really necessary since recently mm packages provide their own .devhelp files, so html documentation could reside in docdir being still viewable by devhelp. -- 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