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=787193 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: vala0.14 - |Review Request: compat-vala |vala compiler, API level |- compatibility version of |0.14 |the Vala compiler --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-05 00:45:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > I don't think compat packages are required to have a version marker in the > name, so just "vala-compat" should work, but I haven't been able to find an > authoritative section in the package guidelines. > > For instance, alongside python-sqlalchemy you can install python-sqlalchemy0.5 > and alongside expat you can install compat-expat1. On the other hand, libwbxml > has the sister package libwbxml-compat (with no explicit version in the package > name). Thanks; I'm using vala-compat now > > Before I start a full-on review, the following things will need to be taken > care of. Are you planning on supporting a branch of this package for EPEL5? > > Issues: > [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean > [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: defattr(....) present in %files devel section. This is OK if > packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 > See: None > [!]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5) > Note: Only applicable for EL-5 > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#EL5 > All those removed. I was entertaining the possibility of people rebuilding vala for use with RHEL, but to think about it, the GNOME bindings are probably not going to work with the older GNOME versions there. > > > The following rpmlint errors need to be taken care of as well: > > rpmlint vala0.14-tools-0.14.1-1.fc18.i686.rpm > > vala0.14-tools.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtool libtool is not actually a library, so this is a false positive -- the dependency does not get picked up automatically [rpmlint spelling warnings ignored] > vala0.14-tools.i686: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/vapicheck 0644L > vala0.14-tools.i686: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/vala-gen-introspect > 0644L > vala0.14-tools.i686: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/vapigen 0644L > vala0.14.i686: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/valac 0644L > vala0.14.i686: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/vala 0644L These are actually symlinks managed by alternatives: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives > vala0.14.i686: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/vala0.14-0.14.1/INSTALL > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. > Removed, thanks Latest Koji build here (I'm now targeting 0.16 for Rawhide; will rebase it to 0.14 for F-17 which ships with Vala 0.16) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4055397 (I've not removed the INSTALL file from there, but it's fixed in the spec and SRPM below) http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/vala-compat-0.16.0-1.fc17.src.rpm http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/vala-compat.spec -- 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