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=502614 --- Comment #31 from Thomas Janssen <thomasj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-05 10:43:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #30) > Some random notes > > * Requires > - There is no needed that main package (stfl) should have > "Requires: pkgconfig". Fixed > - "Requires: python" is not needed for -python subpackage. > python(abi) dependency is automatically added by rpmbuild itself. Fixed > * About sed/patch > - Well, I am one of the person who uses sed command many times > in spec files, however as you already created Patch0/1, > I think it is better that you create Patch2 instead of > using sed (and also see below: at least one more patch > is needed) Fixed, but i converted the patches to sed. I like sed over patch (Byron did the patch stuff). > * Fedora specific compilation flags > - are not honored correctly (check the arguments passed to gcc in > build.log). For example: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 57 gcc -pthread -I. -Wall -Os -ggdb -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -c -o public.o > public.c > 58 gcc -pthread -I. -Wall -Os -ggdb -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -c -o base.o > base.c > 59 gcc -pthread -I. -Wall -Os -ggdb -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -c -o parser.o > parser.c > 60 gcc -pthread -I. -Wall -Os -ggdb -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -c -o dump.o > dump.c > 61 gcc -pthread -I. -Wall -Os -ggdb -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -c -o style.o > style.c > .... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- No idea what to do here. If i sed the export CFLAGS from the Makefile and use §RPM_OPT_FLAGS it fails miserably to build. If i add the optflags and dont sed nothing changes. > * pkgconfig file > - stfl.pc.in contains: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 5 libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is wrong on 64 bits architecure because libdir should be > /usr/lib64 there. Fixed and patch sent to upstream. > * Duplicate documents > - You don't have to include the same documents in each subpackage > when other package which the package depends on (usually the main > package) already contains the documents. Removed. Of course i get a rpmlint warning about the missing docs for those packages. > * %exclude > - I prefer to remove unneeded files at %install instead of using > %exclude unless unavoided. I was able to rm -f one of the three. Two %exlude are still in since i honestly dont know exactly where they come from. I'm not a coder. They just come up as: Writing /home/thomas/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/stfl-0.21-4.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/auto/stfl/.packlist Appending installation info to /home/thomas/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/stfl-0.21-4.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib64/perl5/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/perllocal.pod Nothing i was able to find out with checking the source code. But as i said, i'm not a coder. I can find *some* stuff and fix it. Not yet good enough to understand everything. So i leave it in. Thanks by the way for reviewing it. Spec URL: http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/stfl.spec SRPM URL: http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/stfl-0.21-4.fc10.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1728311 -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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