https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Mario. (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #1) > Just a few initial comments: > > ## Remove static libs > find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -delete > > This command deletes libtool archives, not static libs. This does the > configure switch "--enable-static=no". Okay. > > BuildRequires: tubo-devel > isn't available for Fedora yet and needs to be packaged first. I'm aware of that. > > Requires: glib2 >= 2.22.5 > Requires: gtk2 >= 2.18.9 > Requires: libxml2 >= 2.4.0 > Requires: cairo >= 1.8.8 > > Explicite requirements are not needed in this case. As long as you have the > minimum versions in BuildRequires, it cannot happen that the resulting > binary package gets lower dependencies. BTW, official Fedora packages don't > have an "universal" approach. You don't have to make sure that anyone will > be satisfied who fetches this package from anywhere. It is for a certain > Fedora release, no more than that. > > Moreover, you could shrink BuildRequires a bit. An explicite version of gtk > is unneeded, because EPEL 6 ships gtk-2.14 which is insufficient. All > currently supported Fedora versions have at least gtk-2.24. Gtk2 needs Glib2 > anyway, so you can drop it completely. The same is for libxml2 (f18: 2.9.0), > file (f18: 5.11) and so on. Keep the legibility of your spec file in mind. > Requiring a minimum version doesn't make sense if all current Fedora > versions have it anyway and the package can't be built in EPEL. > Thank you for this analysis. In fact the list of BuildRequires and Requires packages is an heritage from upstream's spec file but that I have not studied as I should have had to do. > BuildRequires: dbh-devel >= 5.0.6 > Well, there's such a package in Fedora, but mostly v1.0.24. Only Rawhide has > the required version, so it won't be possible to get it in Fedora <= 21 > unless dbh-devel gets backported. This makes all of your minimum version > requirements senseless. I like to bring forward these reviews in advance. :) Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librfm/librfm.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librfm/librfm-5.1.3-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review