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=634911 --- Comment #8 from Damian Wrobel <dwrobel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-04 15:50:12 EDT --- Please find some additional comments: (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > - The %{_prefix}/lib should be replaced with %{_libdir} > > > > NOT OK > > Not really. This is /usr/share/lib even on 64-bit architectures, since it > contains the architecture independent-code. According to the [1] the %{_libdir} by default resolves to: /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 (on 64-bit architectures). You can check it by invoking: rpm --eval "%{_libdir}" on your platform. IMHO the usage of: %{_prefix}/lib is not correct mainly because: a) it generates rpmlint error (already pointed in the comment #4): nodejs.spec:78: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/node b) you can't be sure that the %{_prefix}/lib directory really exists on the platform. Is there any reason why do you manually install: node.h and node_object_wrap.h headers and do not place them in the "node" subdirectory in the %{_includedir}? It looks that you can safely use: "waf install" for that purpose. Originally they are placed in the "node" subdirectory which is better than try to put everything directly into the %{_includedir}. It would also be appreciated to provide an appropriate pkgconfig file. According to the [2], please add a comment or a bug link to the provided patches. The way the %files section is organized is quite confusing, and it's very difficult to guess what directories the package owns and whether it's done intentionally or not. > > Please consider to update to the latest available version[3]. > > > > NOT OK > > Done. They've managed to release yet another version [3]. Please also use macros consistently[4]. As the package do not compile on all architectures it should have an appropriate description as per[5]. References: [1]. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros [2]. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment [3]. http://nodejs.org/dist/node-v0.2.4.tar.gz [4]. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros [5]. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures -- 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