Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #2) > New potential packager, doing informal reviews as requested in 'How to get > sponsored'. Good work Jeremy! > Full review included below; the only major point I noticed was a lack of > Requires for any of the gtk/glib libraries. Like Yanko said above, rpm autogenerates Requires for dynamically linked libraries, no need to list them again manually. Note the "libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)" and others down below, this is how an autogenerated dep on the gtk library looks like. $ rpm -qp --requires swell-foop-3.7.92-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit) libXdamage.so.1()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXfixes.so.3()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libclutter-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libclutter-gtk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libcogl-pango.so.12()(64bit) libcogl.so.12()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 > A minor nit - the guidelines say 'MUST' run desktop-file-install; this .spec > only does a desktop-file-validate. Not sure if this spec or the guidelines > should change... Yeah, the wording in the guidelines is unclear. There's two distinct cases: 1) The package doesn't include the desktop file and we instead ship one in the rpm package as a downstream change. In this case, like the guidelines say, we MUST use the 'desktop-file-install' as opposed to just copying the file to the final location. 2) The package includes a desktop file and installs it to the final location itself. In that case, it doesn't make much sense to install it again with 'desktop-file-install'; this is where 'desktop-file-validate' is appropriate. Also, the guidelines say that it's either one or the other. Quoting: "one MUST run desktop-file-install (in %install) OR desktop-file-validate (in %check or %install)" -- 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=L5liI4Jy10&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review