[Bug 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=705043

--- Comment #7 from Veeti Paananen <veeti.paananen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-17 11:33:33 EDT ---
Hi! Thank you for your comments.

> if you don't plan to maintain the package for EPEL < 6, you can drop all the buildroot stuff (BuildRoot field, %clean section, initial cleaning of the buildroot in %install)

I do plan on maintaining this for EL5 (although I think that would require
dropping the GUI subpackage on that branch, since the GTK+ version there is way
too old).

> you should ask upstream to properly apply the GPL by adding the text given in  COPYING to the source files

I'll e-mail him about this.

> Giving the full icon path in the .desktop file is fine, but it's recommended to simply use the basename of the icon file

The reason I added the full path to the desktop file was that the basename
didn't work for me (the icon didn't show up with the menu entry). I came to the
conclusion that the icon should be installed somewhere in the /usr/share/icons
tree instead of /usr/share/pixmaps for that to work - please correct me if I'm
wrong.

> As has already been stated on fedora-devel, it is generally preferred to delete the files you don't want to ship at the end of %install, instead of excluding them in %files.

Is there any specific advantage/reason/logic for doing this? I've changed the
spec to do this, but to me using an "exclude" command in the files section
seems more logical (and easier to understand) than just removing those files
during %install.

As for the shared library, my understanding is that it's not meant to be used
by other applications - it's only designed for internal use by paco to log
installations (and that would probably explain the exit calls in the library
too). paco doesn't install any header files either. However, I might be missing
something here.

In any case, I've fixed all the other stuff you've mentioned. Here's the new
spec and SRPM:

SPEC: http://rojekti.fi/files/paco/4/paco.spec
SRPM: http://rojekti.fi/files/paco/4/paco-2.0.9-4.fc15.src.rpm

Changelog:

* Sun Jul 17 2011 Veeti Paananen <veeti.paananen@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2.0.9-4
- Prefixed patch files with package name and version
- Moved build requirements in spec file to the top
- Preserve the changelog file's timestamp when converting to UTF-8
- Removed /usr/share/paco since the same files are already installed elsewhere
- Added faq.txt to documentation
- More verbose file listings
- Moved file exclusions to rm statements in install section
- Moved patch statements to directly after setup

Nothing new in rpmlint.

-- 
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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]