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=659082 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Vander Stichele <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-07 14:04:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Thanks for the update. It is now in much better shape. I still have a few > questions though: > > ? Do we really need these: > %{?!pybasever:%{expand:%%define pybasever %(%{__python} -c "import sys ; > print sys.version[:3]")}} > > %if "%{pybasever}" == "2.3" > Requires: python-abi = 2.3 > %endif > > Python-2.3 is a bit too old. I don't even remember what Fedora version came > with it. This is not a blocker but I am curious why you have this in the > specfile. ok, removing. > > ! php_extdir doesn't match the guideline > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#PECL_Modules > ok, changed. > ? How about instead of > %attr(664,root,root) %doc perl/example.pl > just > %doc perl/example.pl by default it is executable, so rpmlint complains. > > ? Why is this file a ghost? > %ghost %{python_sitearch}/RDF.pyo > removed. > ! I am still not sure how to handle the common %doc files. I will send an email > to the packaging list. In case we need a common package, we will probably need > a versioned requires, such as > Requires: redland-bindings = %{version}-%{release} > in the subpackages. I don't see why it needs to be versioned ? If this package only contains docs/license info then it's not that important IMO. FWIW rpmlint still errors about a package without any binaries. The licensing situation is cleared up in a commit, so I adapted the license field too. Will build new binaries. -- 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