https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862160 --- Comment #19 from Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #17) > I made a complete review now, based on valkyrie-2.0.0-5.el6_3.src.rpm. > > There are two remaining issues, but I am not 100% sure about them. > > First: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. You moved the html > documentation in %doc. It is shown at runtime when you click on Help -> > Contents. I think this is not really using it at runtime. If these html > files are missing, the Online Documentation will be empty. > If it works as expected, don't bother with it. Even it it fails to start the application, users will find the right doc folder according to the package name, and can open the html stuff in the browser of their choice. Anyway, anything in %doc must not affect the runtime of an application, see the review guidelines. > Second: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. I do > not see something like CFLAGS=... in your spec file and I am not familiar > with qmake Makefile generation, environment CFLAGS set during build. If the > package honors the compiler flags, tell me how it works :-). > This is due to the macro %{?_smp_mflags}. Only in special cases, when CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, OPTS or anything similar is harcoded in a pre-built Makefile, the appropriate definition has to be applied. Mostly the debug packages are empty if compiler flags are not applied correctly, but rpmlint takes care about this. > I also do not know how to check: Packages should try to preserve timestamps > of original installed files. It is only and I marked it with Not evaluated. > As above, I would be thankful if someone could enlighten me howto check this. > With automake, qmake and similar tools timestamps will be preserved anyway. When installing files manually, make it sure by using the "preserve" switches (install -p or cp -p). -- 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