https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036254 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Antonio, (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #3) > > > > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > > > - The '/usr/share/appdata' and '/usr/share/gnome/help' directories are not > > > owned. > > > They are co-owned by some "no-core" packages. I think both directories can be > > > owned even by this package. > > > > I'll update this. > > > > I can't find what package owns /usr/share/gnome/help at all: > > > > [asinha@ankur-laptop ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/share/gnome/help/ > > file /usr/share/gnome/help is not owned by any package > > > > Each package owns it's directory, but no one owns this? Probably a packaging > > bug somewhere. > > Probably because those packages are not installed on your Fedora. > Try "repoquery -f /usr/share/gnome/help" or "yum provides > /usr/share/gnome/help". > > Please, see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your > _package_to_function Corrected. I've also made the package own /etc/bash_completion.d/ since it's the same case. > > > > > > > > > - 'non-conffile-in-etc' warnings should be fixed > > > > I'll look into this. The gconf schema doesn't need to be marked as %config > > from the looks of it since they aren't configuration files that a user can > > manually edit. > > > > Same for the bash completion directory. It isn't marked as a config > > directory: > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/bash-completion.git/tree/bash-completion. > > spec > > It's marked here: > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnome-do.git/tree/gnome-do.spec > :) Erm, are you referring to the schema file here? gnome-do doesn't have any bash completion. I've mailed the packaging SIG asking whether both bash_completion and schema files need to be marked as %config. I'll update the spec accordingly. > > > > > > > > ><snip> > > > > > > Issues: > > > ======= > > > - GConf schemas are properly installed > > > Note: gconf file(s) in hamster-time-tracker > > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GConf > > > > ^ Are they properly installed, or improperly installed? I mean, is the way > > I've handled it wrong? I did get all those scriptlets from the wiki page > > itself. > > They are properly installed although guide-lines say > "For packaging purposes, we have to disable schema installation during > build, ..." and this happens during './waf install ..' tasks. > However, I don't know for particular guide-lines of "waf" and it's necessary > ask in devel ML. I've asked the packaing SIG this too. It's unclear if this means place the file but not register, or not place the file at all. Currently the spec places the file but doesn't register it (Patch0). I've figured out how to stop it from even placing the file, but then I don't understand how the file will be placed in /etc/gconf/schemas (Do I have to do it manually?). I checked revelation, which lets the build system place the file, but doesn't register the schema with the gconf daemon. http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/revelation/0.4.14/5.fc20/data/logs/x86_64/build.log I'll wait for the packaging SIG to reply and update the spec accordingly here too. > > > > > > - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > > > > The package doesn't contain this. Does this need to be added? > > Oh, yes. Sorry, I had not noted. Waf is a python based build system, but it doesn't seem to require python2-devel. Just python2 is enough, and it is pulled in anyway here. I'll update the spec as soon as I hear back from the packaging SIG. Thanks again, Warm regards, Ankur -- 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