https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180723 --- Comment #14 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > Your srpm does not build Oops, sorry, accidentally I've started COPR build with full-fledged spec (which passed), the subsequent build was skipped (same NVR/SRPM URL), but it was at the time I was working on a fixed version already ([comment 11]), and I hit another problem with COPR build later on [3]. I was hoping to move forward faster (and hence provide updated SRPM sooner) but still at massaging that. > URL format with %version I am using a custom file-naming scheme for pre-releases (well, following what 'python setup.py sdist' produces, and this is not pre-release specific; mostly because of clashes with RPM versioning) and the original meta-specfile is accustomed to that. I'll consider making it play better for standard releases, exactly as you suggest. Do I understand it correctly that another suggestion is to use "%version" instead of "%{version}"? > %{?_isa} specific depdendency on noarch packages Ah, %{?_isa} is to be used only within transitive closure of arch-specific packages only (provided that the dependency itself is not noarch)! Just for the clarity: the only arch-specific subpackage is python-clufter as it builds and uses a private binary (ccs_flatten). > %post It was intended to allow for dynamic regeneration of Bash completion file upon installing/removing plugins (e.g., clufter-lib-pcs that offers a new command, which should be reflected in the completion file). Currently this hasn't been tested, I have to look at that. Creating beforehand is sort of an optimization: any computation that can be precomputed (memoized) should be done early, once for all. > completion file Thanks, I have no idea how could I find this out except for studying spec of bash-completion! It's a shame that even Packaging Guidelines page shows off /etc/bash_completion.d [4]. Re: second point, good catch, I'll will make the package own that dir itself (bash-completion is completely optional). Re: %config, that's good, it is not a configuration file, really (should not be backed up, etc.) > %doc Thanks again for teaching me new stuff. > License (GFDL) Well, this is embarrassing :) > %files Thanks. > %files -n usage with having %{name}- prefix Result of meta-specfile arrangement, will think about that. > usage of "|| :" Yes, I learnt this from some authoritative docs, and four characters overhead is negligible enough to put up with that, IMHO. > ${ret} I am aware of "set -e", but this is more robust (no macro will accidentally bring "set +e", etc.) > Remove macro-in-comment rpmlint Ah, this is a result of meta-specfile simplification process (original contains "%%"), will fix it. [3] https://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jpokorny/clufter/build/68529/ [4] https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Guidelines&rd=Packaging%2FGuidelines#The_directory_is_wholly_contained_in_your_package.2C_or_involves_core_functionality_of_your_package -- 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