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=618480 --- Comment #4 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-27 08:17:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > [-] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > > As it only library it should start from "lib" prefix. > We should not add lib to the pkgname, see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#General_Naming It is doubtfull, but ok, it is not stop issue. > This is an installation patch and irrelevant to upstream. Ok, then add comment in spec about it. > > > [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > > license. > > License tag should be GPLv3+ according to comments in sources. > Several months ago, I confirm this issue when submitting QTeXEngine to fedora. > See http://soft.proindependent.com/emf/licensing.html Did you contact upstream author to clarify this? Sources say it GPLv3+. How you confirm it in the past for the QTeXEngine? > > [-] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf > > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > > About it also complain rpmlint, please fix. > Buildroot is no longer needer for fedora. > See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag Error absolutely irrelevant BuildRoot tag specification. and yes, if you do not plan maintain it for EPEL 4-5 it may be omitted. This error say you must add rm -rf %{buildroot} at beggining of %install section. > > Some note: > > 1) Just for polish. May be have worth dos2unix all files in one command: > > find -name '*.h' -or -name '*.hh' -or -name '*.hpp' -or -name '*.c' -or -name > > '*.cc' -or -name '*.cpp' -exec dos2unix -k {} \; > > Furtermore, as we pack in -devel only headers, converting of sources (*.c, > > *.cc, *.cpp) seems unnecessary. > *.cpp file will be included in -debuginfo subpackage, so we should convert all > source files to unix line ending. Ok, let it be. As there only text files, in this case you can simple do it for all files like: find -type f -exec dos2unix -k {} \; > > 2) I'm do not understand for what you add %{?_isa} in requires and > > buildrequires of -devel sub-package? Are headers different or arch dependent? > > See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequires Firstly it is the draft only. Secondly, main question was: is really for this package content of EmfEngine-devel-0.8-1.fc13.i686.rpm and EmfEngine-devel-0.8-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm different?? If no, it is not relevant how architecture of -devel sub-package will be installed to satisfy -devel dependency. -- 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