https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070702 --- Comment #15 from Jan Staněk <jstanek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Updated package: Spec URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/lmdb/lmdb.spec SRPM URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/lmdb/lmdb-0.9.11-1.fc20.src.rpm > - As already mentioned above, package name should correspond with the > project name, which is lmdb, not liblmdb. Package renamed back to lmdb. > - As mentioned in comment #9, syncing with Debian/OpenSUSE library > versioning seems like a good idea to me. It seems the other distros > use liblmdb.so.0.0.0, which is what we should use as well then. Went with that idea -- the full name (filename and soname flag) is now liblmdb.so.0.0.0 > - Binaries should be detached from the library file, since for proper library > dependency only the library is necessary and the binaries are not. > This may be also significant on multilib systems, in case there is some > non-ELF file in the /usr/bin in the future. > So I guess we should be prepared for that. > This can be solved by introducing lmdb-libs subpackage, that would include > only the library (and necessary doc -- license, ...) Created subpackage -libs, which now contains the shared library and the %doc files from main package (COPYRIGHT, CHANGES and LICENSE). I figured that since this subpackage does not need the main package, but main package is dependent on it, the %doc files should be in the subpackage. This way they are allways installed when the library is. However rpmlint does not likes that and issues a warning about no documentation in the main package. > - Generated documentation can introduce file conflicts on multilib systems, > which means 32bit and 64bit -devel packages could not be co-installable. > Therefore the generated doc may be moved to a separate package and made > noarch. > That would also solve the next issue: > - Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2181120 bytes in /usr/share Moved the doxygen generated documentation to separate -doc subpackage. I was not able to find any guidelines about Requires: for this kind of package, so right now it is standalone - it requires no other lmdb* package and it is not required by any of them. Is that OK? > - The macro %{version} should be changed to %%{version} in the comment in the spec file Corrected. > - The following lines seem to be not necessary to me in the %install section, > since they only remove files from the build directory: > rm -f Doxyfile > rm -rf man # Doxygen generated manpages Moved the mentioned lines at the end of the %build section. Their role is to silence the rpm warnings regarding unpackaged files. -- 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