https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Kaleb KEITHLEY from comment #2) > > 1. Remove %defattr(-,root,root) > > > > 2. Remove rm -rf %{buildroot} > > > > 3. Remove %clean > > > > 4. Why are libntirpc sources necessary? > > If it is not already obvious, nfs-ganesha doesn't build without them. > > > Shouldn't this be a separate package? > > No, it shouldn't. libntirpc not ready to be a stand-alone package. When it's > ready it will be packaged separately and removed from the nfs-ganesha build. OK. It would be nice to have this as a comment in the spec, so people don't wonder if this is a bundled library. > > 5. It would be nicer to use direct github url as Source0: https://github.com > > /%{name}/%{name}/archive/pre-2.0-RC2.tar.gz. This way it's easier to update, > verify sources, etc. > > It doesn't exist. (Using it now would result in an additional rpmlint > warning.) It exits, I actually tested the link before posting. > Eventually it will be there and when it is then it'll be used. I don't > consider this as a show stopper for the review. Sure, just nice to have. > > > > 6. %description could become Summary, and please extend the description a > > bit, saying a bit more what the project is useful for etc. > > Say more about what an NFS server is useful for? Well, I think that would be useful: not every user immediately knows what NFS stands for, some think that it stands for Need For Speed. What I had in mind, was why *this* NFS server, what does it do better than the other ones. > > 7. [ nothing here ] > > > > 8. There's no need to say %{__tar}, %{__rm}, %{__make}, %{__chmod}. Just use > plain tar, rm... Such indirection only makes sense for things that are likely > > to be substituted at some point, like %{__python2}. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > ReviewGuidelines says "MUST: ... use macros". I used macros. Actually is says "must use macros *consistently*", which is not the same. If you follow the link it says "use macros instead of hard-coded *directory* names", "rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}". > > 9. Please add Provides: bundled(gnulib). > > It doesn't provide gnulib, bundled or otherwise. I don't know what this > refers to. Yeah, my error. > > 10. Please split out big docs into a separate package (size ~ 2MB). > > > > 11. Please change cmake to %cmake. > > This RC doesn't build with %cmake. I will notify the upstream developers and > maybe they can fix this for the next RC. (I am only kickstarting the > packaging, as a favor.) > > > > > 12. Please change %{__make} to make VERBOSE=1 %{?_smp_mflags}. > > > > 13. libzfswrap cannot be bundled (https://fedoraproject.org > > /wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries). Please remove it in %prep. > > There is no libzfswrap bundled. There is nothing in %prep about libzfswrap. When I unpack the sources, I have contrib/libzfswrap This directory should be removed in %prep, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries. Possibly other steps must be taken later on, but this is the first one. > > > > Oh, and I think you have a very old fedora-review, which is provided outdated > suggestions. > > Do you mean the template? It's the one from > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ReviewTemplate. It is mostly > consistent with > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > ReviewGuidelines. Hm, indeed. So this template is in contradiction to the guidelines, e.g. because %clean is now discouraged, while it is a MUST in the template. > Updated files at > > Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-1/nfs-ganesha.spec > SRPM URL: > http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-1/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.rc2.fc19.src. > rpm There's now -rc3. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review