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=732205 --- Comment #2 from Denis Arnaud <denis.arnaud_fedora@xxxxxxx> 2011-08-21 07:16:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Some quick comments: Thanks for the comments/feedback! > Drop the README file, as it only contains instructions on how to install. I take it as an encouragement to put more project description into the README :) > The doc package should require the base package. AFAIK, that is not a requirement (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package). Indeed, it makes sense to install a doc sub-package without having to install the base package, for instance if you just want to read the documentation before hacking with the software. > Drop COPYING from the doc sub-package, as the base package provides it. Well, you are right when the -doc sub-package depends on the base package. In my case, as the -doc sub-package does not require the base package, it is part of the exception and the license file has to be repeated (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplicate_Files and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing). > "This package contains the documentation in the HTML format of the %{name} > library." -- That's probably not perfect English. Thanks. I have re-worded it as following: "This package contains HTML pages, as well as a PDF reference manual, for %{name}. All that documentation is generated thanks to Doxygen (http://doxygen.org). The content is the same as what can be browsed online (http://%{name}.org)." > Your devel sub-package does not contain static libraries, as the description > claims. Thanks. I have re-written it: "This package contains the header files, shared libraries and development helper tools for %{name}. If you would like to develop programs using %{name}, you will need to install %{name}-devel." > State BuildRequires per package -- not per sub-package. AFAIK, there is no such requirement from the guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires). So, it is a question of taste, then (for instance, many legitimate packages are like mine in Fedora). I personally prefer stating the BR in the sub-packages where they are required (e.g., the doxygen BR comes from the documentation package generation). > The two chmods serve no purpose. You are absolutely right. Since I am also part of upstream, it would not have been clever to fix the file permissions only at the time of packaging, would it? I have removed the corresponding two lines. > You can use the name macro on this line: %{_libdir}/lib*.so.* You are right. It is safer to be explicit (and, in the present case, more consistent with the -devel sub-package specification). > You're packaging manpage 1 twice. Unless I have missed something obvious, * one section-1 manual page is for the main (ELF) binary, namely 'airsched'; * while the other section-1 manual page is for the (Shell) configuration helper, namely 'airsched-config'. The latter manual page is in the -devel sub-package because it servers only the needs of developers using AirSched. > I think, you don't have to package the m4 file. You are right: I do not have to. But I do not want to force everybody to use CMake and/or pkgconfig. Typically, developers, building their own software with the GNU Autotools on top of AirSched, will need an airsched.m4 file. Note that mine is probably far from perfect; but I would say "it is better than nothing" for those needing such a thing (in my team, for instance, we needed it for a long time... before switching to CMake). > "Install the %{name} package if you need a library for simulated Schedule > Management C++ library." -- A library for a library? Thanks. I have re-worded it: "Install the %{name} package if you need a library of basic C++ objects for Airline Schedule Management, mainly for simulation purpose." --------------- I shall very shortly publish the new specification file (and source RPM) URLs. -- 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