https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747 --- Comment #7 from Julian Leyh <julian@xxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #4) > Could you please rename it? For example into gnat-programming-studio (to be > honest, I really don't know much about a typical Ada workflow and how you > are (Ada developers) usually refer to the tools you're using so keep in mind > this while taking my advices). Most other Linux distributions name it "gnat-gps". I called it "gps", since there is no other package with that name yet, and i could use %name in the spec file. I would be okay with gnat-gps or even gnat-programming-studio, but would prefer the shorter one. Would this mean renaming the /usr/share/gps directory, too? > - rpmlint is NOT silent. Except bogus messages aout spelling mistakes, could > you please explain the rest? I'm especially concerned about rpath,, > executable-stack and zero-length files. > gps.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> > customization > gps.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizations -> > customization, customization's, customization s > gps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> > customization > gps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizations -> > customization, customization's, customization s Well, I took the description from the debian package.. > gps.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gps > ['/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/adalib/', '/usr/lib64', '/usr/lib', > '$ORIGIN/../../templates_parser/.build/native/release/relocatable/lib/', > '/usr/lib64/xmlada/relocatable/', > '$ORIGIN/../../gnatlib/src/lib/gtk/relocatable/', > '$ORIGIN/../../gnatlib/src/lib/python/relocatable/', > '$ORIGIN/../../gnatlib/src/lib/gnatcoll/relocatable/', '/usr/lib64/'] This should be fixed with gprbuild bug number 834425. > gps.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/gps I don't really know what this means, will read about it. > gps.x86_64: E: zero-length > /usr/share/gps/examples/tutorial/projects/prj1/src1.adb > gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/share/gps/examples/language/language_custom.h > gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/matrix_handling/matrix_utils.c These and the other zero-length files in the examples folder are part of the tutorials and examples. Should they be moved into a separate package? > gps.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gps/examples/remote/my_ssh > 0644L /bin/sh Belongs to examples, too, maybe the install routine installed it with permissions of data files. Do example scripts have to be executable? > gps.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/gps/templates/aws_web_server_blocks/js/aws_kernel.tjs Should be easy to fix.. > gps.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gps GPS only supplies documentation in html, texinfo, pdf, and txt format - no manpage. > -The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is > included in %doc so it MUST be marked as %doc in the %files section. Please > do. Will add it. > 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on > systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. Will add it. > - The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file does not > installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section so please use > desktop-file-validate for that. I did use desktop-file-install, should I change this? > 0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with > old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. I checked, it does rm -rf it.. Thanks for reviewing my package. I hope to do better in the future. -- 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