https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #5 from Björn Persson <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry Peter if I stole your review. Since I had been working on Templates Parser I figured I should submit the notes I had. (In reply to comment #3) > Should the documentation go into a separate subpackage? %name-docs? You may choose to make a subpackage if you consider the documentation to be "a lot" as the Packaging Guidelines say, or "large" as the Review Guidelines put it. (It's a bit funny that the Review Guidelines have it as a MUST item that large documentation must be in a subpackage, but leave it entirely to the packager to define "large".) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation Note that there is a risk that developers who install templates_parser-devel won't notice that templates_parser-doc exists. By the way, it may be a good idea to install the .info file in %{_infodir}, where the info command will presumably find it, but that's not something I'm familiar with. > > · _GNAT_project_dir must be used. Pass "I_GPR=%{_GNAT_project_dir} > > I_TGP=%{_GNAT_project_dir}/templates_parser" to make install. > > I left this out, because it was the same. But I do see the point, it might > be somewhere else. Will change. It will be somewhere else in Fedora 18. So far /usr/lib/gnat has been the only place where Gnatmake would look for project files. In GCC 4.7 it also looks in /usr/share/gpr, which is a better place for architecture-independent files. GPRbuild also knows to look in /usr/share/gpr, so I changed _GNAT_project_dir in Rawhide. > Didn't really know if soname is necessary or not. In #fedora-devel nobody > could give me a definite answer. The way I read the guidelines it's not a blocker if there is no soname: "When a shared library file is only provided in an unversioned format, the packager should ask upstream to consider providing a properly versioned library file. However, in such cases, if the shared library file is necessary for users to run programs linked against it, it must go into the base package." (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages) That means that you can package the library without a soname, but then the unversioned name must be present in %{_libdir}, and not only in the devel subpackage. The problem with the current package is that the library is hidden in a subdirectory and the link in %{_libdir} doesn't have the name that the loader will look for unless the devel subpackage is installed. If you add a soname, then the filename in %{_libdir} shall match the soname, and the unversioned link goes in the devel subpackage. > About the patch you mention: if I > understand correctly, it makes the library file "lib%{name}-%{version}.so", > the version before the ".so". Should I change it like that? I chose that format so that the soname will change in every release. Libgnat for example uses that format. If you put the version after ".so", then it will be assumed that minor releases are guaranteed to be ABI-compatible, and that the ABI changes only in major releases, so the soname will become "libtemplates_parser.so.11". The upstream developers make no such guarantees. (If they did, the way to communicate it would be to include such a soname.) (In reply to comment #4) > This library can be compiled for static linking. Should this be added, too? Only if there is a compelling reason, which I don't think there is. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries -- 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