Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael@xxxxxxx 2007-02-07 10:24 EST ------- > Requires: grass-libs Unless mispackaged, there is an automatic dependency on library sonames already. Query the binary rpm file with "rpm -qpR". Avoid explicit dependencies on package names wherever possible. > Provides: grass = %{version}-%{release} It's automatic already and hence duplicate. Every package "Provides: %name = %version-%release" automatically. > %package libs > Requires: python tk > Requires: zlib mesa-libGL mesa-libGLw xorg-x11-util-macros freetype lesstif > Requires: proj geos blas lapack fftw2 gdal => 1.4.0 > Requires: unixODBC mysql postgresql-libs sqlite > Provides: grass-libs = %{version}-%{release} Same here. The "Provides" is not needed. Plus, you have lots of suspicious and questionable dependencies on library package names in there, which should be automatic already. [-devel package] > Requires: grass-libs => 6.2.1 Does that really work? Is "=>" recognised as ">="? Anyway, ought to be "Requires: grass-libs = %{version}-%{release}" If you don't require a specific %version-%release, your package users will run into funny problems whenever grass-devel and grass-libs are out-of-sync. >%build > >CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" >CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" Not needed. The %configure macro sets and exports these two already. > gzip -9 ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_prefix}/grass-%{version}/man/man1/*.1 Manual pages included in %doc are compressed automatically. > %post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun devel -p /sbin/ldconfig Useless. %defattr in sub-packages ought to come _before_ %doc file sections. -- 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