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=524190 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-10 14:49:15 EDT --- Well, first of all some general packaging guidelines: * From the next time please change the release number of your spec file every time you modify it to avoid confusion. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes * If the software installs both system-wide libraries and some header files, - Then those files for development should be packaged into the seperate subpackage (usually named as "-devel" package) and should not be included in the main package. Please refer to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Devel_Packages You can base your spec file on a skeleton file provided by rpmdevtools rpm. After installing rpmdevtools, you can try $ rpmdev-newspec -t lib flowcanvas ( see $ rpmdev-newspec --help ) - And Fedora already has many srpms of this type, for example: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/oniguruma/devel/oniguruma.spec?view=co * Please don't use _unpackaged_files_terminate_build and correct %files entry (if there are some mistakes) * You can use "rpmlint" command (in rpmlint rpm) to detect some generic packaging mistakes. Please check your srpm / rebuilt binary rpm / installed rpm with rpmlint. * Please use "%{name}.spec" for the name of the spec file. Then some notes: * Summary should begin with capital letter * "GPL" is not a valid license tag for Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL * Please use macros correctly. ! Note that your srpm still does not build on 64 bits architecture. On 64 bits architecture libraries are to be installed under /usr/lib64, not /usr/lib. Anyway using %{_libdir} macro will fix this problem, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros * Using %{version} macro is preferred because with it you probably won't have to change the SourceURL when version is upgraded: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D - 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 by recent autotools. * For rpms installing system-wide libraries, please check: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries * For %files: - Please create -devel subpackages and move developement related files into it. ! And note that every package containing pkgconfig .pc file should have "Requires: pkgconfig": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Pkgconfig_Files ! Also see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package - libtool .la files should be removed: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries - Please take care of directory ownership issue. The directory %{_includedir}/flowcanvas/ itself is not owned by any packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories#Common_Mistakes -- 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