[Bug 740160] Review Request: discount - An implementation of the Markdown language in C

[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=740160

--- Comment #4 from Craig Barnes <cbgnome@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-25 16:56:34 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hi! Someone else will need to sponsor you, but here's some comments:
> 
> - You should always upload a SRPM file somewhere when updating the spec file
> and post a link here. It will make it easier for reviewers. Once you upload
> one, I'll take a closer look.

Sorry I forgot to make the SRPM available when I bumped the spec. I will keep
SRPMs here from now:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2682668/discount-2.1.1.3-4.fc15.src.rpm 


> - You seem to have the subpackage idea right: discount will be the command line
> utility, libmarkdown the library itself and libmarkdown-devel will contain the
> headers. However, you need to fix the following:
> 
> 1. Explicit requirements between the packages. Since the command line utility
> depends on the libmarkdown library, you should add an explicit require on the
> base package for libmarkdown. (Following the syntax here:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package)

I did this and rpmlint gave an error (E: explicit-lib-dependency). I researched
it a
little and it seems that if the base package depends on a sub-package library,
RPM
handles the dependency automatically. Correct me if I'm wrong. I have left this
one
out for now.

> 2. In addition, if a user wants to develop software using libmarkdown, they
> will need libmarkdown to use the development files, so add a requirement for
> libmarkdown to the devel subpackage too.

Fixed.

> 3. Non-versioned shared libraries (libmarkdown.so) must be packaged in the
> development subpackage
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages). (You
> should also remove the noarch parameter from -devel.)

Fixed.

> - You should select files in the %files section more verbosely: for example:
> 
> 1. For the binary file, just do %{_bindir}/markdown
> 
> 2. For the manual files, do something like %{_mandir}/manx/*.x* (where x is the
> number)
> 
> 3. For the library files, you can select the versioned files with
> libmarkdown.so.* and the non-versioned file with just libmarkdown.so.

Fixed (I think). Did everything you suggested here but more feedback
appreciated.


> - Needless to say, the description and summary for libmarkdown should contain
> something.

Done.

> - If you don't plan on building this package for EPEL5, you can remove %clean.
> Otherwise, you need to add a BuildRoot tag and do rm -rf %{buildroot} in the
> beginning of %install too.
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag)

Yeah, I had just blindly copied that part, not really understanding what it was
for.
I've moved the -rf %{buildroot} back to the top of install. Hopefully that's
correct.
feedback appreciated.


Thanks a lot for the feedback. It helped to clear up a few confusions I had and
to
fix most of the rpmlint warnings. There's just 1 remaining warning about
libmarkdown-devel not having any docs. Also, I have just noticed that the old
description about "developer-oriented man pages" is no longer accurate. Will
fix
and bump shortly.

-- 
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]