Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889505 --- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> --- A bit of feedback on the reviewer comments would be very welcome, too, and could result in faster progress and even better guiding/hints. For example, one reviewer has told you not to package the .a and .la file, another pointed out that the package would violate the static library guidelines, but you've not commented on that yet. Many things in the packaging guidelines are not in there just for fun, but with the goal of avoiding packaging pitfalls. > %package static _Why_ is the static lib being built? [Regardless of that question, a -static subpackage would not need to depend on the base package (a run-time shared library package), but the -devel package.] > rpmbuild is creating an empty -debuginfo package. I don't yet know why this > is happening. Perhaps the "redhat-rpm-config" package is not installed. One can get it also as a dependency when installing the "fedora-packager" package. Or the test-build is not done with Mock (or the Fedora Build System "koji" if you follow the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers process steps), or the built code applies its own insufficient compiler flags, or it strips the built code. > License: MIT and BSD https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text That's one of the early items on the following list: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines > %{_configure} --prefix=%{_prefix} The %{_configure} macro expands to just "./configure", so using the macro doesn't add any value. Better would be to add a comment to the spec file that explains _why_ "./configure" is used. Is it a custom-made configure script and probably incompatible with the more commonly used %{configure} macro? Check out: $ rpm --eval %_configure $ rpm --eval %configure > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT LIBDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} > MANDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir} INCLUDEDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir} Does it use DESTDIR at all? As a prefix for the "install" target? If so, that raises the question why to override the other variables, too? Btw, there's the %{make_install} macro these days, which saves some typing in the spec file. > the base package which contains the man pages. That's the wrong package for them. They are development related. Section 2 (system calls). > %{_includedir}/kqueue/sys/event.h The "unowned" directory issue is still present. > %{_libdir}/libkqueue.so This file is included in the wrong package. > %{_libdir}/libkqueue.la The previously linked packaging guidelines say something about these files. > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libkqueue.pc %{_libdir} is not substituted correctly in this file. It's hardcoded to /usr/lib here for x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kYDIlmrSrs&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review