Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libassa - C++ Object-Oriented network library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210187 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael@xxxxxxx 2006-10-10 15:05 EST ------- > %define debug_package %{nil} This must be removed. Disabling debuginfo packages is the wrong thing to do. > %define rel 2 > %define disttag fc5 > %define release %{rel}.%{disttag} Overused macroism. %rel is used only once in the entire spec file. %disttag serves no purpose since %{?dist} ought to be used, and "Release" tag defines %release. Use just Release: 2%{?dist} and expand %rel in the Source tag. > Packager: Vladislav Grinchenko (vld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > Vendor: 3rdShift, Inc. Set these always via ~/.rpmmacros instead. When set in a spec file, anybody who would built non-working binary rpms would pretend that they are from you. Further, the build system shall set these. > Source: %{name}-%{version}-%{rel}.tar.gz Download URL is missing. > Prefix: /usr Doubtful. If this package shall be made reloctable, at least use %{prefix} here instead of /usr. > BuildRoot: /tmp/%{name}-%{version}-root Not the recommended buildroot from the packaging guidelines. > %package devel > Summary: Headers for developing programs with libassa library > Group: Development/Libraries Missing "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" > CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" \ > ./configure $ARCH_FLAGS \ --prefix=%{prefix} \ Use the %configure macro instead of "./configure". It sets many other parameters beyond --prefix, e.g. --libdir and --datadir. > %install > if [ -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ]; then rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT; fi This is neither necessary nor safe. Just use "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". > # new redhat versions don't use .la > rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la Don't mix %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > %post > %preun > %postun With these scriptlets, the package is missing: Requires(post): /sbin/install-info /sbin/ldconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig > %postun > /sbin/ldconfig > > #=============================================================================== > # clenup section > #=============================================================================== Don't place any "#-----" comments directly after scriptlet sections. They are included in the binary rpms. Query your binary rpms with "rpm --query --scripts libassa" to see! > %files > %defattr(-, root, root) > > %doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog INSTALL NEWS README Verify whether the INSTALL file is relevant to RPM package users. If it's the standard FSF file, it's irrevelant. > %{prefix}/lib/*.so.* This will be wrong on platforms where the library must be installed in %{_libdir} instead, so use %{_libdir} instead of %{prefix}/lib Same for -devel package. > %files devel > %defattr(-, root, root, 755) Any particular reason why %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not enough? > %{prefix}/bin/* Use %{_bindir} > %{prefix}/include/assa-3.4 Use %{_includedir} > %{prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/*.pc > %{prefix}/lib/*.so Use %{_libdir} and "Requires: pkgconfig" > #%doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog INSTALL NEWS README > %{prefix}/share/doc/* > %{prefix}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/* Files marked as %doc are included automatically in an internal _docdir path, so it's weird to see files included here again. Further, %{prefix}/share is %{_datadir}, so prefer it. > %files doc Missing %defattr(-,root,root,-) > %doc doc/html > %changelog > * Wed Jul 19 2006 Vladislav Grinchenko <vlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > - disabled tests and examples in configure step As you add more changelog entries, don't forget to add the package version and release to every entry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review