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=551911 --- Comment #9 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-17 16:38:49 EST --- I've looked at the new package: 1. the lang problem is still there: using rpmlint on the binary rpm reveals lots of the following messages: monodevelop-boo.i686: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding/locale/ca/LC_MESSAGES/monodevelop-boo.mo monodevelop-boo.i686: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/monodevelop-boo.mo The generated %{name}.lang file is empty. The root cause is, that the sed command does not fully work. Actually the following changes are necessary: --- monodevelop-boo.spec.2 2010-02-13 15:32:32.000000000 +0100 +++ SPECS/monodevelop-boo.spec 2010-02-17 22:11:07.000000000 +0100 @@ -50,8 +50,7 @@ find %{buildroot} -type f -o -type l|sed ' s:'"%{buildroot}"':: -s:\(.*/"%{_lib}"/monodevelop/AddIns/Monodevelop.Boo/locale/\)\([^/_]\+\)\(.*\.mo$\):%lang(\2) \1\2\3: -s:\(.*/"%{_lib}"/monodevelop/AddIns/Monodevelop.Boo/locale/\)\([^/_]\+\)\(.*\.mo$\):%lang(\2) \1\2\3: +s:\(.*/%{_lib}/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding/locale/\)\([^/]\+\)\(.*\.mo$\):%lang(\2) \1\2\3: s:^\([^%].*\):: s:%lang(C) :: /^$/d' > %{name}.lang @@ -61,7 +60,12 @@ %files -f %{name}.lang %defattr(-,root,root,-) -%{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding +%dir %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding +%{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding/*.dll +%{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding/*.mdb +%dir %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding/locale +%dir %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding/locale/* +%dir %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES - my example used two lines with the substitution rules because there were two base directories with language files (that's not the case here) - the double-quotes around %{_lib} were still in the sed rule (since the whole block is surrounded by '') - the \([^/_]\+\) did not work since the boo binding uses language IDs like "de_DE" (which anki didn't) - to ensure that all directories are correctly packaged and no files are packaged twice there ware some changes in the %files section needed as well - I have positively tested that this fixes the language problem I have described in comment #3. 2. even after these changes there are the following rpmlint warnings: rpmlint RPMS/i686/monodevelop-boo-*-4.fc* SPECS/monodevelop-boo.spec SRPMS/monodevelop-boo-2.2-4.fc13.src.rpm monodevelop-boo.i686: E: no-binary monodevelop-boo.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib monodevelop-boo.i686: W: no-documentation monodevelop-boo-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Addin -> Addie, Adding, Admin monodevelop-boo-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Addin -> Addie, Adding, Admin monodevelop-boo-devel.i686: W: no-documentation SPECS/monodevelop-boo.spec:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec SPECS/monodevelop-boo.spec:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 4) monodevelop-boo.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec monodevelop-boo.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 4) 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Sure, "no-binary", "only-non-binary-in-usr-lib", "no-documentation" and "cnofigure-without-libdir-spec" are false positives, but the others should be fixed. I know, this may sound like nit-picking, but that's the way how I was taught doing reviews (and accepting when my packages were reviewed). Since it is usually quite hard to distinguish between "minor" and "major" issues revealed by rpmlint if there are lots of warnings, I think we should eliminate as many as possible (IMHO is this similiar to compiler warnings) in the first place... ;-) -- 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