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 #5 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-27 08:32:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > 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. I'm sure we should not add lib to the name(e.g. glibc/qt/gtk). > > > > > [-] 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? All qtiplot specfic libs are under GPLv3, though the license header may be GPLv2+/GPLv3+. See http://soft.proindependent.com/serv/projects.html for a whole list > > > [-] 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 > This error say you must add > rm -rf %{buildroot} > at beggining of %install section. >From guideline: Fedora (as of F-10) does not require the presence of the BuildRoot tag in the spec and if one is defined it will be ignored. The provided buildroot will automatically be cleaned before commands in %install are called. So rm -rf %{buildroot} is not needed for %install. > > > 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 {} \; I'll apply this change to the spec since it's simpler. > > > 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?? I think most -devel subpackage are arch-specfic because the location of development libs(/usr/lib vs /usr/lib64). -- 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