[Bug 957693] Review Request: gfal2-python - Python bindings for gfal 2.0

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957693

--- Comment #3 from Adrien Devresse <adev88@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Update :

Spec URL:
http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-python/gfal2-python.spec
SRPM URL:
http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-python/gfal2-python-1.2.0-1.el5.centos.src.rpm


> Obviously your explicit runtime requirements are unneeded. Both Boost and Python are picked up automatically.

--> Corrected 

> glib2-devel is redundant, it is needed by gfal2-devel anyway. Please drop it from BR.

--> Done

--> Please use python2-devel instead of python-devel:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires

--> Done

> W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gfal2.so gfal2.so
Don't know what it means and how this could be fixed. Any explanation is
welcome.

--> Means that a shared library is outside of the standard library path /lib
and /usr/lib, it's normal in the case of a python module.

> The -doc subpackage doesn't contain any arch specific files, please tag it as "BuildArch: noarch". Moreover, the %{?_isa} tag there is obsolete then.

--> It's technicaly impossible from what I know to have one subpackage noarch
and an other arch specific inside the same SRPM.
A lot of package follow the pattern of -doc arch specific package.

xmltooling-doc.x86_64 : XML signing and encrytion library documentation
xmltooling-docs.x86_64 : XMLTooling API Documentation
xosd-devel.x86_64 : Development files for the XOSD on-screen display library
xqilla-doc.x86_64 : XQilla documentation

etc...

-> The %changelog section is somewhat overloaded. Put any changes there
regarding the package itself, not the underlying upstream software.

--> Cleared

-> Once the package is ready for importing it to the Git repo, make sure you
remove all the EPEL5-specific parts from the non-EPEL5 spec files (%defattr,
%clean section, initial cleaning of buildroot in %install and the BuildRoot:
tag).

I prefer keep one spec file and one SRPM for all plateform when possible, it
simplify a lot the version management and the updates.



Adrien

-- 
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=AKdQDn3Tlq&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]