https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=993324 --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > extra care when reviewing its SPEC file Not really. Header-only C/C++ APIs aren't so special. It's just that there isn't much in the packaging guidelines. Also, there have been package submissions that named the src.rpm "something-devel" because there would be no base package to build. There are more packaging pitfalls with normal lib+header APIs (e.g. sometimes there are headers with a missing lib, or a lib gets deleted after building it, or private headers get installed accidentally and packaged). > Version: 0.0.0 > Release: 20130617svn That's not one of Fedora's package versioning schemes yet: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning Why the triple '0'? Why not a single '0'? And for snapshots, you'll need the pre-release prefix (for much more flexibility): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages Release: 0.1.20130617svn > Summary: Embedded LL library Sum up what it does, not what it's named. The %description is short enough to be suitable as a %summary. Example: Summary: Header-only C++ library to write EBNF grammars https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Examples_of_good_package_summaries (not perfect but a good start) > License: LGPLv3 The source files say "or later" -> LGPLv3+ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses > %build > make %{?_smp_mflags} Since this builds only the test-suite, this "make" invocation could/should be moved into the %check section. It doesn't use Fedora's compiler flags, btw: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags > # to track the usage of this library > Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release} Yes, that is not in the guidelines and only helps with tracking (via scripts or repoquery). Basically, any other package can "BuildRequires: ell-devel" and build successfully without any need to make use of to the ell-static Provides. It's the responsibility of the package maintainer(s) to know when to rebuild dependencies against important ELL updates. > Processing files: ell-devel-0.0.0-20130617svn.x86_64 It would be interesting to mention in the spec file that this package does not set "BuildArch: noarch". I assume that is done, so the test-suite will be run for all target archs. -- 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=H2RxFTJDYR&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review