https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 --- Comment #16 from raveit65 <chat-to-me@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #10) > 1) Please update license to LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ (run license check -r . in > source folder) done > 2) Please remove source1 Can you explain me specific why this macro is bad if it isn't forbidden in package guide lines? 'why' is declared inside the macro. # Copy schemas from old package for later uninstall on upgrade # Macro to remove schemas. Not meant to be used publically # Remove schemas unconditionally # Remove schemas on package removal (not upgrade) Same macro is also used by latest GConf2-3.2.5-2.fc18.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=3204445 If gnome can why not me? > 3) Please update URL to http://mate-desktop.org done > 4) Please remove specific versions from dependencies (see below). Specific version are mostly declared in configure.ac or configure.n in source code. So i have to to it. But, I will take a look in configure.in for using the correct version no. > 5) Please remove unneeded defines in top of spec file. done > 6) Please remove patches and submit them to upstream, or give a logical > explanation of why they MUST be in this package. > Specific versions in the spec file because are not necessary. This patched wasn't upstreamed to gnome git before perberos forked GConf2. Without this patch we can run into this bug. http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=568845 > ============================================================================ > > tail of fedora-review build.log: > > INFO: Installed packages: > Start: build phase for mate-conf-1.4.0-7.fc18.src.rpm > Start: device setup > Finish: device setup > Start: build setup for mate-conf-1.4.0-7.fc18.src.rpm > ERROR: > Exception(/home/dan/844015-mate-conf/srpm/mate-conf-1.4.0-7.fc18.src.rpm) > Config(fedora-17-x86_64) 0 minutes 11 seconds > INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/dan/844015-mate-conf/results > ERROR: Command failed: > # ['/usr/bin/yum-builddep', '--installroot', > '/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/', > '/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root///builddir/build/SRPMS/mate-conf-1.4.0- > 7.fc17.src.rpm'] > Getting requirements for mate-conf-1.4.0-7.fc17.src > --> libxml2-devel-2.7.8-7.fc17.x86_64 > --> libxslt-devel-1.1.26-9.fc17.x86_64 > Error: No Package found for mate-corba-devel >= 1.1.0 > Weird, see root.log in my scratch build DEBUG util.py:257: Package Arch Version Repository DEBUG util.py:257: Size DEBUG util.py:257: ================================================================================ DEBUG util.py:257: Installing: DEBUG util.py:257: autoconf noarch 2.69-3.fc18 build 701 k DEBUG util.py:257: automake noarch 1.12.2-2.fc18 build 664 k DEBUG util.py:257: dbus-glib-devel x86_64 0.100-1.fc18 build 51 k DEBUG util.py:257: gettext x86_64 0.18.1.1-16.fc18 build 1.1 M DEBUG util.py:257: glib2-devel x86_64 2.33.6-2.fc18 build 1.9 M DEBUG util.py:257: gobject-introspection-devel x86_64 1.33.4-2.fc18 build 1.0 M DEBUG util.py:257: gtk-doc noarch 1.18-3.fc18 build 266 k DEBUG util.py:257: gtk2-devel x86_64 2.24.11-2.fc18 build 2.9 M DEBUG util.py:257: intltool noarch 0.50.2-3.fc18 build 58 k DEBUG util.py:257: libtool x86_64 2.4.2-6.fc18 build 586 k DEBUG util.py:257: libxml2-devel x86_64 2.8.0-2.fc18 build 1.2 M DEBUG util.py:257: libxslt-devel x86_64 1.1.26-10.fc18 build 304 k DEBUG util.py:257: mate-common noarch 1.4.0-6.fc18 build 13 k DEBUG util.py:257: mate-corba-devel x86_64 1.4.0-9.fc18 build 162 k 1.4.0 > 1.1.0 right? > ============================================================================= > === > > rmlint on srpm: > > > $ rpmlint mate-conf-1.4.0-7.fc18.src.rpm > mate-conf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pluggable -> plug > gable, plug-gable, plugged > mate-conf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> back > ends, back-ends, backhands > mate-conf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workgroup -> work > group, work-group, groundwork > mate-conf.src:113: W: deprecated-grep [u'fgrep'] > mate-conf.src:7: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line > 7) > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. > > MUST fix: > > mate-conf.src:113: W: deprecated-grep [u'fgrep'] > mate-conf.src:7: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line > 7) > > ============================================================================= > === This i will fix later. > > Also we don't need to create a separate gtk package for files that are > already provided by gnome in the Fedora stable repo (unless we have a VERY > good reason). Which files are already provide by gnome? Can you list them pls? We have already a gtk subpackage > > Please also run rpmlint on the binary rpm generated on my local machine > there are a few files that used rpath (I'm still working on it but you can > see my spec file on my fp page that is a WIP). > > Please review the following: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines > > > Please also keep in mind, we want to package an RPM that is as close to > upstream source as possible with as little modification to the source code > as possible. > > We do not want to modify or patch the code whatsoever unless absolutely > necessary. > We talking about technologie software, if a patch is necessary or useful than i have to use them. A little bit patched or using no patches makes no sense in my eyes. I do not patch a upstream because it is funny or somthing else. In my little Opinon we need them. I've success with this politic over 6 month. Why you want to change a successfully running system? Most patches are from fedora if Gnome has version 2.3x (fc14) >From this versions mate was forked from gnome. So it makes sense for me to use some work which was improved in fedora before. Hey and the work from the fedora gnome guys was good in 2.3.x = Mate I read a comment from you about my repo. You said it is heavely patched. Of course that is the reason why fedora-mate have less issues than other distros at mate forum. > If there is something that you disagree with, please talk to me on IRC or > google talk and we can discuss it further. I don't really understand your position of using patches, because you never say why this specific patch is bad because of specific reasons. You said only i don't want this. Why? Sorry, i have to clarify my position here. I try to explain it several times at gmail, but...... And this is a easy package, there are others...i think you will never agree with me. > Once you address all of the issues above the package review can continue. Thx for your hints -- 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