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=539387 --- Comment #8 from Mario Ceresa <mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-06 10:24:45 EDT --- Hello Peter, Here we are. I have some questions, sorry if they are stupid, but I'm not very familiar with spec files: * No need to re-define %{name} and %{version}. Just put correct values to proper fields (Name: and Version:) at the top of the spec. Fixed * Source0 url should be corrected. See Source1 for example I'm not quite sure if I get this. Do you want me to remove %name and %version from Source0 and write directly http://voxel.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/itk/InsightToolkit-3.16.0.tar.gz ? * %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake should be placed in devel rather than in main package, I believe. Also, I'm not sure this is a correct place to put CMake files in. Moved to the devel section. Neither I am sure about their correct position. Maybe they should be put in cmake config dir? * Unowned directory - %{_libdir}/%{name} . Just list it as %dir in main package's %files section. Fixed * Source1 should be added as %doc in devel-subpackage First copied to builddir in %prep and then added as %doc. Not sure if this is the correct way * In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Fixed * Files within 'Copyrght' foler must be packages as %doc. Fixed * Consider, also, packaging of 'Docmentation' and 'Examples' folders. Added doc and examples sub-packages * I just found, that ITK contains numerous bundled libraries, many of them are duplication Fedora's system ones - see 'Utilities' directory. This should be fixed (and necessary BuildRequires should be added). Fixed adding -DUSE_SYSTEM_* to cmake flags. Anyway I didn't find any package for niether GDCM nor VXL. Should I package them as well or can I leave the itk versions for now? * Also I'm anxious about the contents of 'Code/Patented' folder. Fixed. After asking to the developers, we agreed to remove both Patented and Review: http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-users/2009-December/034323.html $ rpmlint SPECS/InsightToolkit.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings $ rpmlint SRPMS/InsightToolkit-3.16.0-2.fc12.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/i686/InsightToolkit-devel-3.16.0-2.fc12.i686.rpm InsightToolkit-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/i686/InsightToolkit-doc-3.16.0-2.fc12.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I have a lot of warnings for: $ rpmlint RPMS/i686/InsightToolkit-examples-3.16.0-2.fc12.i686.rpm Mostly W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package and W: spurious-executable-perm But actually the C++ examples are devel files so I'm not sure if I should package here or in devel Also some error in the form of E: script-without-shebang but I thought that might wait until we decide if to package them into the example or the devel package. $ mock -r fedora-12-i386 rebuild InsightToolkit-3.16.0-2.fc12.src.rpm INFO: Done(SRPMS/InsightToolkit-3.16.0-2.fc12.src.rpm) Config(fedora-12-i386) 15 minutes 19 seconds but: $ koji build --scratch dist-f12 InsightToolkit-3.16.0-2.fc12.src.rpm exited with errors, but I don't understand why: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1852520 The new spec file and srpms are available in my brand new fedorapeople space! (Thanks Peter for that, it really works like a charm!) http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/InsightToolkit.spec http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/InsightToolkit-3.16.0-2.fc12.src.rpm I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon, Mario -- 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