[Bug 758166] [EPEL] - Review Request -- thrift 0.6.1

[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=758166

Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx

--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-02 13:42:36 EST ---
Okay. There are quite a few things to work on here:

* Please start your release counter at 1, not 0 (unless it is some sort of
pre-release package as documented in the guidelines)
* There is no need to have this section at all:

# -- package information
%define _name           thrift
%define _version        0.6.1
%define _release        1
%define _group          Development/Libraries
# -- filesystem information
%define _prefix         /usr
# -- debug package

Just populate the Name:, Version:, Release:, Group: fields, as those will then
automatically define %{name}, %{version}, %{release}, %{group}, respectively.
You also should never need to override _prefix.

* The BuildRoot is not one of the approved choices, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_specific_guidelines

* Don't use 0%{?rhel_version} for conditionals. Use 0%{?rhel} (as described in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag)

* Explicit Requires should be for foo = %{version}-%{release}, not just foo =
%{version}.

* The Group tag would not be identical for all subpackages. Not that it matters
very much, to be honest, that tag is not required in RHEL 6 or newer, but if
you're going to do it, please be more accurate.

* Also, the %description would not be identical for all subpackages. Please
make them correct and applicable for each subpackage entry.

* Please don't double-up config options to configure on a single line. It makes
it less obvious what is happening there, and more complicated to conditionalize
or comment out in the future.

* The %{?jobs:-j%{jobs}} syntax isn't valid, replace it with %{?_smp_mflags}.

* %defattr(-,root,root) should be %defattr(-,root,root,-)

* For EL-5 or older, packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must Requires:
pkgconfig (for directory ownership and usability).

* I'm not sure why you have split the glib library into a subpackage. Is this
to minimize dependencies on the main binary?

* The LICENSE file must be included as %doc as part of every possible install
transaction. This means that if a package with LICENSE is pulled in as a
dependency of another subpackage, it does not need to be present, but in the
case of items like the glib, perl, python subpackages, if they can be installed
without the -libs subpackage, then they need to have LICENSE as %doc.

* You use both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Pick one and use it
consistently throughout. I recommend %{buildroot}.

* Is it really necessary to use %{__make} and %{__cp} instead of simply "make"
or "cp"?

* You still have FIXME - PHP REQUIRES

* Does make check not work for older releases than RHEL 7?

* Is there a reason this package isn't planned for Fedora?

-- 
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]