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=651123 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey Ness <jness@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-09 10:58:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Hi Jeffrey > > your package will not build as it presently stands. > > Please be sure to install rpmdevtools and follow all the guidelines here to > build your Fedora package: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package > and here > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines > > A few things in particular: > - your LICENSE file in your source states GPLv2 whereas you have specified GPL > in the spec file > - you need to specify the full URL of your Source0 > - your release number should start at 1 not 0 > - you cannot unpack files into /opt when you are building packages in your spec > file (you should not be installing anything under /opt in any case). The line > 'setup -q' will unpack the source named under Source0 for you into > ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/%{name}-%{version} where your package is built. Everything in > the spec file is executed relative to here. In your case you could omit the > %build section and simply move the required files from this area to your > buildroot in your %install section. > - your %post is better suited to a README file > - you will also need to clean up your files section, including adding a %doc > line to include your license file and any other documents you wish to be > included in the package such as AUTHOR, README - refer to the links above > > Once you've attacked those things and can successfully build your package using > rpmbuild be sure to run rpmlint against the generated src package and post thre > results back here. > > hope that helps, > > Brendan Hello Brendan, Thank you very much for this information, it has been very useful in my entering of the RPM development scene. I have been re-rewriting my SPEC file and took in your considerations above: Spec URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/sarGraphs-1.1-1.spec SRPM URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/sarGraphs-1.1-1.src.rpm -- I have also found the 'rpmlint' tool to be a great asset, below you can find the current results: rpmlint ../SRPMS/sarGraphs-1.1-1.src.rpm sarGraphs.src: W: summary-not-capitalized sarGraphs takes the output of sysstat and creates a graphical PHP Web interface. sarGraphs.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot sarGraphs takes the output of sysstat and creates a graphical PHP Web interface. sarGraphs.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary sarGraphs sarGraphs.src: E: invalid-spec-name sarGraphs.src:24: E: files-attr-not-set sarGraphs.src:25: E: files-attr-not-set sarGraphs.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install sarGraphs.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean sarGraphs.src: W: no-buildroot-tag sarGraphs.src: W: no-%build-section sarGraphs.src: W: no-%clean-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings. -- I believe the 3 errors can be over looked. I do not need to set the default file attributes, and I believe my SPEC file naming convention matches that of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Naming. As for the warnings nothing stands out to something I would need to correct. I'm going to attempt to build on the Fedora Build system , however at the moment it seems the site 'https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/login' is under high load. I will attempt one of these mock builds when the site is available. Thanks Jeffrey- -- 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