https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990272 --- Comment #6 from Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #5) > "bump the version" likely refers to the "Release" tag: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes > | > | Increase the "Release" tag every time you upload a new package > | to avoid confusion. The reviewer and other interested parties > | probably still have older versions of your SRPM lying around > | to check what has changed between the old and new packages; > | those get confused when the revision didn't change. > > It would be more helpful, if Christopher would give a rationale (or a link > to the Wiki) when asking for spec file changes. > > [...] > > A close look at the package: > > > > %global snapshot .git20130730 > > Release: 1%{snapshot}%{?dist} > > If following the guidelines, the date would come before "git": > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages > > That's not really important for post-release snapshots and when strictly > keeping the same package versioning scheme, but it helps avoiding surprises, > such as comparing letters with numbers: > > $ rpmdev-vercmp 1.git20130830.fc19 1.20130730git.fc19 > 1.git20130830.fc19 < 1.20130730git.fc19 Changed. > A test-build: > > > configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --with-tests Fixed. > > checking whether to build gtk-doc documentation... no > > Documentation: no The documentation is pre-generated to ensure that multilib builds don't conflict. So the documentation is pre-built, but won't be built during the package build. > > Maintainer mode: yes > > Indeed, it's one of the configure scripts that still enable > AM_MAINTAINER_MODE. Not an immediate problem, just pointing it out. I'll poke upstream on it. > > checking for LIBMBIM_GLIB... no > > configure: error: Package requirements (glib-2.0 >= 2.32 > > gobject-2.0 > > gio-2.0 > > gudev-1.0 >= 147) were not met: > > No package 'gudev-1.0' found > > It's missing: > > # libgudev1-devel > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gudev-1.0) >= 147 Fixed. > > Requires: glib2%{?_isa} > > So, if there is _no_ minimum version requirement, the conclusion is that you > should drop this explicit Requires completely in accordance with: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > > There is an automatic arch-specific dependency on the libglib-2.0.so.0 > SONAME. Requires removed; relying on auto deps. > > make %{?_smp_mflags} > > Two options for making the build output more verbose (so one could actually > see what compiler flags are used or examine build logs with scripts). Either: > > V=1 make %{?_smp_mflags} > or > %configure --disable-silent-rules ... Fixed to "V=1 make" > Relevant rpmlint output for the binary rpms: > > > libmbim.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libmbim-1.5.0/COPYING > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address Poked upstream, they fixed it, new tarball. > > libmbim.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libmbim-1.5.0/README > > Not a big issue. You could drop it, but decide yourself whether you would > notice that a future upgrade would fill it with contents. Poked upstream, they fixed it, new tarball. > > libmbim-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > libmbim-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mbimcli > > libmbim-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mbim-network > > Just including these warnings to meet the review guidelines. ;) Upstream is discussing how to add the manpages. > > %package utils > > License: GPLv2+ > > GPLv2 and GPLv2+, since the mbim-network script contains a GPLv2 preamble > with no "or later" clause. It was unintentional. Poked upstream, they fixed it, new tarball. > > glib2 also provides some gtk-doc, and while that's currently stored > > in glib2-doc it has switched around in the past between -devel (which > > is a BuildRequire) and -docs so I'm more comfortable explicitly > > owning the relevant dirs than all of them. > > There is no reason to be concerned, because we install into an empty > %{buildroot}, and that one won't include any docs from glib2 build > requirements. > > > %dir %{_datadir}/gtk-doc > > %dir %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html > > %dir %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/libmbim-glib > > %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/libmbim-glib/* > > %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/ > > achieves exactly the same thing. Fixed. spec and RPM in same location again. Thanks! -- 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=08GaUbaPMm&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review