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=646789 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-23 04:42:40 EST --- * Please enter your real name in your bugzilla.redhat.com account preferences. Currently, you are listed as "(none)" on the NEEDSPONSOR list, which isn't helpful. * Also maintain your own %changelog entries in the RPM spec files. For example, openturns.spec only lists two entries where your name/email doesn't appear at all. The package review ought to start with an added changelog entry that marks the start of the packaging for Fedora. * A brief look at the spec (not a full review): > Summary: Uncertainty treatment library > Group: Development/Libraries Run-time library packages typically go into group "System Environment/Libraries". > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root Note that several details related to BuildRoot are not necessary anymore in Fedora 13 and newer: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > Patch0: typedefs.patch It is common practice to add the package name and software version to Patch file names, e.g. openturns-0.13.2-typedefs.patch Not only does that make clear which package the separate patch files belong into and "when" they have been created, it also reduces the risk of conflicts (especially when working in environments where multiple releases may use the same SOURCES directory). > Requires: lapack > > Requires: R-rot = 1.4.4 > Requires: R-sensitivity >= 1.3.0 [...and more...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > Obsoletes: %{name} < %{version} Even if self-Obsoletes like this may be harmless, there ought to be a comment in the spec file explaining them. Also mention when this Obsoletes tag has been added and when/whether it may be removed again. > %package examples > Summary: OpenTURNS examples > Group: Development/Libraries Really? > %package validation > Summary: OpenTURNS validation files > Group: Development/Libraries Really? > %build > %configure --disable-python > > %if 0%{?mdkversion} > ... > ./configure > ... So, for Mandriva the configure script would be called twice? Once as %configure, then as ./configure. Doesn't look correct and adds to the fact that the attempt at writing multi-dist spec files often introduces errors. > %check > export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} > ... Good effort. > %files > ... > %config %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf > ... > %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.so.* The directories %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/ %{_libdir}/%{name}/ are not included in the package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories > %files devel > ... > %{_datadir}/%{name}/m4/ Here, %_datadir/name is not included. The -examples and -validation subpackages also depend on that directory. > %doc AUTHORS COPYING README In all four packages? Bad choice. Including these %doc files in just the main library package is sufficient. -- 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