https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022584 --- Comment #4 from Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2) > 0. Not critizing, just trying to understand. Why are those packages split > out from qpid-cpp? The QMF code is pretty much obsolete at this point, but there are still packages that depend on it. The current code is fairly stable, but will soon be moving to its own upstream source release that's independent of the Qpid code releases. So, rather than rebuilding the QMF packages each time Qpid releases, even though QMF hasn't changed at all, we'd like to make the QMF packages totally independent of the Qpid packages. > 1. Those %globals at the top are probably not required, unless you're > targetting EPEL5. Good point. Removed. > 2. python-devel requires python, so BR:python is not necessary. Removed that, and also ruby. > 3. %defattr is not needed. Removed. > 4. %clean section is not necessary, likewise empty %check. Removed. > 5. Can you restructure the spec file to have normal structure: %package, > %description, %prep, %build, %install, %post, %files... Well, the way it is now the sections for each subpackage are grouped together, making it easier to read all parts of each subpackage on a single screen. I'd rather keep it that way. > 6. Can you extend the %description a bit? "management" — for what?, etc. Done. I pulled the description from our project website. > 7. Change BR: phyton-devel to python2-devel Done > 8. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/qpid-qmf-0.24 Fixed. > 9. Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/qmf(qpid-cpp- > client-devel), /usr/include/qmf/engine(qpid-cpp-client-devel) > > Since there's a dependency on those packages anyway, maybe there's no need > to own those directories. When this package gets through review, those ownerships in qpid-cpp will go away: qpid-cpp-client-devel currently owns the qmf include direct, but that's being removed in an update, same with the qmf/engine directory. > 10. Dist tag is missing. > > qpid-qmf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/libqmfengine.so > qpid-qmf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/libqmfconsole.so > qpid-qmf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libqmf2.so > qpid-qmf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libqmf.so Fixed. > 11. qpid-qmf-devel requires pkgconfig. I think this can be filtered out: > %global __requires_exclude pkg-config Done. > 12. Docs ended up in a versioned directory: > /usr/share/doc/qpid-qmf-0.24/LICENSE > /usr/share/doc/qpid-qmf-0.24/NOTICE Hrm, the global macro should only define a versioned directory if there wasn't already an existing version. Anyway, since I'm targeting releases where the macro is predefined, I've removed the global and the qpid-qmf package owns the directory. Update SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qpid-qmf.spec Update SRPM: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qpid-qmf-0.24-11.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6098174 -- 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