https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #7 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- First of all thank you very much for sharing all your knowledge about proper packaging for Fedora. This really helps me getting comfortable with the Fedora specifics. I've updated the apf.spec file and created new rpm packages. Answers to your comment #6 may be found below. Spec URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf-1.15-2.fc17.src.rpm RPM URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf-1.15-2.fc17.noarch.rpm MOCKBUILD: [rottmrei@fedora SPECS]$ mock /home/rottmrei/rpmbuild/SRPMS/apf-1.15-2.fc17.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 1.1.22 starting... State Changed: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled State Changed: start INFO: Start(/home/rottmrei/rpmbuild/SRPMS/apf-1.15-2.fc17.src.rpm) Config(fedora-17-x86_64) State Changed: lock buildroot State Changed: clean INFO: chroot (/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64) unlocked and deleted State Changed: unlock buildroot State Changed: init State Changed: lock buildroot Mock Version: 1.1.22 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.22 INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache State Changed: unpacking root cache INFO: enabled yum cache State Changed: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache State Changed: running yum State Changed: unlock buildroot INFO: Installed packages: State Changed: setup State Changed: build INFO: Done(/home/rottmrei/rpmbuild/SRPMS/apf-1.15-2.fc17.src.rpm) Config(default) 1 minutes 33 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result State Changed: end [rottmrei@fedora SPECS]$ fg -bash: fg: current: no such job RPMLINT: [rottmrei@fedora SPECS]$ rpmlint -i /home/rottmrei/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/apf-1.15-2.fc17.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [rottmrei@fedora SPECS]$ rpmlint -i /home/rottmrei/rpmbuild/SRPMS/apf-1.15-2.fc17.src.rpm apf.src: W: no-%build-section The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. (In reply to comment #6) > Pretty much everything in this package is installed in the wrong place. You I have heavily changed all the target locations according the filesystem hierarchy standard and symlinked them. > BuildRoot, the first line of %install, the entire %clean section and the > %defattr line in %files are completely unnecessary in Fedora and should be > removed. Removed them. > You don't need an empty %build section at all. Removed it, however rpmlint shows this as a warning. > Packages should not depend on the base php package. There's a draft about > this here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP which should > make its way into the actual guideline relatively soon. Since this does > include an apache conf file, depending on httpd is OK. I've changed the php dependency to mod_php > Why does this package require a local mysql server? Wouldn't it work with a > remote server? Good point. Only php-mysql is needed. > Macro forms of basic comments like %{__rm} should not be used. Just use > "rm" instead; it's a whole lot less typing, and we're not going to remove rm > from the path pretty much ever. Got rid of them. > You call dos2unix without having any dependency on it. Added dos2unix under BuildRequires. > It's pretty suboptimal to do selinux setup in scriptlets. It would be > better, once a proper location for the files is chosen, to get the base > selinux package to include the proper file contexts. The selinux folks are > very responsive. Good point. Will get in touch with the selinux folks. Until the proper rules get included, I will leave the selinux config in place. > You should use a proper systemd call to restart httpd, and include the > proper dependencies for it, if indeed you really feel like doing that. > Personally I don't think that installing this package should mess with a > running httpd, and the other webapps I checked don't do that. Removed it. You're right. This is much safer. > > There's no need at all to do this: > %dir %{_localstatedir}/www/apf-%{version}/ > %{_localstatedir}/www/apf-%{version}/* > Instead, just use one line: > %{_localstatedir}/www/apf-%{version}/ Tried to remove them, however to follow the FHS, things got more complex. > You shoud put the README files somewhere under docdir instead of spreading > through all through the application directory, unless there's some specific > reason they need to be where they are. Done. -- 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