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=749299 --- Comment #2 from Ricardo Rocha <rocha.porto@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-04 12:58:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > For the purposes of process bug #749132 details the sponsorship of you. > > Quick parse: > 1) Please include details of how the tar ball is created. Fixed. > 2) BuildRequires: autoconf%{?_isa} > BuildRequires: automake%{?_isa} > > makes no sense since they noarch, these are probably all over kill but > certainly these two are wrong. Actually they're not needed at all, it's a leftover from a previous spec. Removed. > 3) There is no such package on curl-devel on newer than RHEL5, even if it > is satisfied by obsoleted provides possible. Use a dist tag to be more > exact. Eventually libcurl-devel should drop the curl-devel > > %if %{?fedora}%{!?fedora:0} >= 10 || %{?rhel}%{!?rhel:0} >= 6 > BuildRequires: libcurl-devel > %else > BuildRequires: curl-devel > %endif > > is what I use. Cool thanks. I was submitting koji builds to el5/epel only, guess i have to do it for more than that before putting any specs here. > > 4) You have excessive BuildRequires, e.g (lib)curl-devel requires > pkgconfig so there is no need to specify it. Similarly gridsite-devel > requires openssl-devel, there are probably others. > > This probably goes for some of your other packages, if you can trim > them down preferably to the minimum the better. Makes sense. I've cleaned it up with what looks to me like the minimum. > 5) BuildRequires: libtool%{?_isa} you have twice. Fixed. > 6) On the libs package you almost certainly don't need > Requires: curl%{?_isa} > Requires: gridsite-libs%{?_isa} >= 1.7 > Requires: gsoap%{?_isa} > Requires: openssl%{?_isa} > > since they will auto generated as .so requirements. Check other sub package > as well. Removed. For the server it's a dependency on the httpd (the daemon) and gridsite (for the delegation portType). So i believe they're needed. And i left the ones for the -devel. > 7) Pointless comment: #cd build > %post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun devel -p /sbin/ldconfig > almost certainly not needed, should show up in a rpmlint. Actually it doesn't. Shouldn't i do this? It does provide the .so link. > 8) Duplication of > %doc README LICENSE > in at least devel and libs package. Removed (i was going to swear i had a rpmlint W before, but i'm not getting one now). > 9) %{_sysconfdir}/init.d/lcgdm-dav > is presumably an init.d script so should be in /etc/rc.d/init.d > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Initscripts_on_the_filesystem Ups, sorry. Missed that one. > # rpmlint items: > 10) Fails on http://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/lcgdm, switch to https since > its a permanent 301 relocation. > > Am surprised that rpmlint does not complain about > $ rpm -qp --scripts lcgdm-dav-devel-0.5.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm > postinstall program: /sbin/ldconfig > postuninstall program: /sbin/ldconfig > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries I don't get it. Should i remove this from the devel package? From the docs anything providing a shared library (or symlink) should invoke this? > 11) lcgdm-dav-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources > > Hmm indeed they are not there, see: > > rpmlint -I debuginfo-without-sources > > for info and indeed despite %{cmake} being used it's seems something > inside mangled your cflags and you built with > > /usr/bin/gcc -Dlcgdmhtext_EXPORTS -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT > -DNSTYPE_DPNS -Wall -fPIC -I/usr/include/httpd -I/usr/include/apr-1 > -I/usr/include/lcgdm -I/usr/include/dpm > -I/home/steve/rpmbuild/BUILD/lcgdm-dav-0.5.0/client -o > CMakeFiles/lcgdmhtext.dir/htext_common.c.o -c > /home/steve/rpmbuild/BUILD/lcgdm-dav-0.5.0/client/htext_common.c > > which is not > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags I've spent some time looking at this one and couldn't find where it's happening. I'll put a new comment as soon as i find it, and a new version of spec/srcrpm for review. Thanks. -- 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