Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-04 13:58 EST ------- OK, trying to restrict myself, these are the final rants. I also went over the Packaging Guidelines. Summarizing the status of things as they stand, and I believe they are all: Blockers -------- * The executable-sourced-scripts errors by rpmlint are definitely errors. Reading the rpmlint source code it only checks two directories for such things, /etc/bash_completion.d and /etc/profile.d. Bug here: <http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/17>. I guess Separate bugs need to be filed for other packages that put execuatble files there. * The two "Conflicts"es are fine, but should be documented. Quote from <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts>: "Remember, whenever you use Conflicts:, you are also required to include the reasoning in a comment next to the Conflicts: entry, so that it will be abundantly clear why it needed to exist." * From <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines>: "MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory." glib2 puts files in /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/. That means that it should at least depend on gtk-doc that owns /usr/share/gtk-doc. The html subdirectory is more problematic, but I think gtk-doc should be changed to own it. Already mentioned in bug 225870. * Please use the "-p" option of install for copying files to /etc/profile.d. See <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps> Possible improvements --------------------- * I believe the summary lines should be a little different for each sub-package. My raw suggestion is "developement files for glib2" and "static libaries for glib2", but anything that makes the three a little different is fine. A user is supposed to be able to distinguish the packages based on their description sometimes. Same description doesn't help. * Please mark %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/* as documents. Just add a %doc at the beginning of the line. rpmlint output -------------- E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh 0755 E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh 0755 E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: glib2-static devel-dependency glib2-devel W: glib2-static no-documentation W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libglib-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgobject-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgthread-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgmodule-2.0.a All are fine except the executable-sourced-script ones, already mentioned above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review