[Bug 962834] Review Request: libmetalink - a Metalink C library

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962834

Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> ---
> rpmlint output

Fix the issues found by rpmlint, please. Also run rpmlint on the _built_ rpms,
not just the src.rpm.


> Summary:        A Metalink C library

In Anaconda and package tools, which display these summaries, it looks better
(and more concise) when omitting these leading articles:

  Summary: Metalink library written in C

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Examples_of_good_package_summaries


> BuildRoot: ...

> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

> %clean
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

> %defattr(-,root,root,-)

Nowdays these are not necessary anymore. Unless you want to build with the same
spec file for EL5. Therefore it's better to remove what's not needed anymore
and add a comment what shall be kept:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions


> %package       devel
> Summary:       A Metalink C library devel package

More clear (as in many -devel packages):

  Summary: Files needed for developing with %{name}

> Requires:      %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package

> Requires:      pkgconfig

Not needed. Automatically added for the executable _and_ the .pc file's
Provides.


> %package       docs

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation

Probably not worthwhile, but you could see whether to replace this -docs
package with a -doc package (dead.package file says: retired on 2012-02-06).

> Group:         Development/Libraries

Rather "Group: Documentation".

> Requires:      %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

Independent documentation -doc packages typically don't require the base
package. It should be possible to install documentation without having to
install a program and all its dependencies.


> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/metalink/
> %{_includedir}/metalink/metalink*.h

Duplicate file entries. The first includes the directory *and* everything in
it. The second includes the header files once more. Choose either one:

  %{_includedir}/metalink/

Or:

  %dir %{_includedir}/metalink/
  %{_includedir}/metalink/metalink*.h

As a packaging hint: It can be helpful to spell out the specific file names of
header files, so if one file gets renamed during a version upgrade, the build
would fail and serve as an early-warning-system.

-- 
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=PBU5jeEZW5&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]