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=564520 --- Comment #9 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-16 16:09:31 EST --- I've started to walk through the Fedora Guidelines and comparing with this draft package. Here are some more comments. The %files list isn't right. It ends with: %exclude %{_datadir}/frama-c which makes these lines pointless: %{_datadir}/frama-c/why %{_datadir}/frama-c/manuals Basically, %{_datadir}/frama-c/why and ../manuals don't get packaged at all. The file list in -devel don't look right at all to me; they look like examples but NOT code necessary for developers depending on frama-c. (See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml for more on OCaml -devel packages.) I suggest re-examining the %files list, so that they get split more cleanly *AND* so that there's a -doc subpackage. Strictly speaking, what you're packaging is "Frama-C Beryllium 2" not "Beryllium". This package contains a GUI, so there should be a .desktop file. The Makefile uses "$(CP)" everywhere, but its definition (in share/Makefile.common) doesn't preserve timestamps (this impacts the 'make install' in the -devel package in particular). You need to try to preserve timestamps. One way would be to modify share/Makefile.common so that: CP = cp -f becomes: CP = cp -f --preserve=timestamps Have you tried passing the SMP flags, e.g.: make %{?_smp_mflags} if that FAILS, then that should be documented, otherwise you should try to build using SMP. Thanks for working on this package, I really appreciate it. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review