https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991639 --- Comment #5 from efigue <efigue.foss@xxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #3) > Confirmed. Macro-madness is not a blocker according to the guidelines, but > all those macros will cause you some headaches eventually. I won't approve a > package that redefines several implicitly defined macros. Examples: > > > %define version 0.1.2 > > The "Version" tag already defines %{version}, so replace > > Version: %{version} > > with > > Version: 0.1.2 > > and you can use %{version} anywhere you like. > > > > %define release 1 > > This is wrong and misleading. Here you assign the value 1 to %release, but > further down in the spec you do > > Release: %{release}%{?dist} > > which defines %{release} to this new value. The old definition is lost. > Mass-rebuild scripts also will have a lot of fun trying to figure out > whether to modify (= "bump") the Release tag or the definition of "release". > Please don't make it so complicated. > > > > Url: %{url} > > "URL: http://efigue.foss.free.fr"; and you're done. Well, you reuse %{url} > for the Source0 tag, but hey, the "URL" tag defines %{url}, too. This is not > an obfuscation contest, but a rather simple package which should come with a > rather simple and readable spec file. > > > > %define name python-facct > > Again, the "Name" tag defines %{name}. There is really no need to redefine > these macros at the top of the spec file, becoming a crowded place, and you > would need to scroll back'n'forth to locate where and how those macros are > used throughout the spec file. > > > * Run rpmlint (or rpmlint -I for more helpful output) on the src.rpm and all > built rpms. Feel free to ignore obvious false positives in the report, but > fix > anything else. Preferably add a comment here about whether/when you think > what > rpmlint reports is correct or incorrect. > > $ rpmlint python-facct-0.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm > python-facct.src: W: file-size-mismatch facct-0.1.2.tar.gz = 316035, > http://efigue.foss.free.fr/facct-0.1.2.tar.gz = 316042 > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > > > %files -f %{_tmppath}/INSTALLED_FILES > > %files -f %{srcname}.lang > > This is severely flawed. Just query the package contents to verify what is > included currently: > > $ rpmls -p python-facct-0.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm|grep ^d > drwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/facct-0.1.2-py2.7.egg-info > drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/python-facct-0.1.2 > > Directories are missing! > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories > > There are also duplicate files in both packages, e.g.: > > $ rpmls -p python3-facct-0.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm | grep locale > -rw-r--r-- > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/facct/locale/fr_FR/LC_MESSAGES/facct.mo > -rw-r--r-- > /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/facct/locale/fr_FR/LC_MESSAGES/facct.mo > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplicate_Files Thanks for the review and explanations. I uploaded a new version also for the size check. Regards -- 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=G6MVtwrEIh&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review