https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #8 from Sinny Kumari <ksinny@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, I Updated spec file according to feedback provided by Michael. Updated links are: Spec Url - https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/spec/libabigail.spec SRPM Url - https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/srpm/libabigail-1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.src.rpm Koji Build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8660213 > Fedora's packaging guidelines want you to include the checkout date her as a > prefix: Done > > BuildRequires: gzip > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Removed, my mistake that I provided gzip as explicit BuidRequires > > Requires: elfutils > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > > TLDR: Add a comment that gives the rationale why this explicit Requires are > necessary. Yes, there is no need of elfutils in Require section. So, removed. > > %package -n libabigail-devel > > Provides: libabigail-devel = %{version}-%{release} > > That's a very unusual explicit Provides you should delete. It's the same > that's added by rpmbuild automatically! ;) > > > > %package -n libabigail-doc > > Provides: libabigail-doc = %{version}-%{release} Thank you for pointing it out. Removed :) > > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > > Please keep Documentation packages completely separate from any such > dependencies, so they can be installed without pulling in stuff that's not > needed. Unless the documentation can only be displayed with a program > included in a separate package. That's not true for HTML files, manual pages > and Info pages. Yes, there is no need to keep main package as dependency for libabigail-doc package. Removed. > Not shipping the section 7 manual pages in the same package as the tools > themselves is a packaging bug. Keeping man7 files in doc package in order to keep main package size minimal. It will be useful in case of running libabigail on smaller boxes. > Blocker: The license files are not included! They must be included in the > base package (and preferably also in the separate -doc package to be > complete): > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing Added available License file in libabigail main and doc package. > > %check > > The section is executed _after_ %install, so it should be placed below > %install in the spec file. (Btw, this is especially true, if the test-suite > were to be run on %buildroot contents.) Moved %check after %install > > > %{_infodir}/abigail.info.gz > > Not a blocker, but just like manual files are included with a '*' wildcard > suffix instead of ".gz", doing that also for Info files would be more > flexible (with regard to disabling/customising the compression technique > used by the build system). Done > > %post -n libabigail-doc > > /sbin/ldconfig > > > %postun -n libabigail-doc > > /sbin/ldconfig > > Why is ldconfig run here? Sorry, it was my mistake. Not needed as doc package doesn't install any shared library. > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3547/8623547/build.log > > Build output is non-verbose. You cannot see whether Fedora's global > compiler/linker flags are used, and you cannot easily verify what options > are used during compilation: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags > > Try passing V=1 to make, or configure with --disable-silent-rules, or look > for extra build options, or patch the Makefile(s) if necessary. Added --disable-silent-rules option in %configure. Thanks -- 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