https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218362 --- Comment #10 from Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andreas Gruenbacher from comment #7) > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/sys > > Requires on glibc-headers required for /usr/include/sys > > The librichacl-devel package does not create /usr/include/sys, it only puts > files there. But see below ... Fair enough, this was only meant under the "Requires packages for directories it uses". > > > [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > > I have no idea what "%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}" does. > > It's from this from this commit: > > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/acl.git/commit/ > ?id=231dae96d1ec92a18d9a53e73e080c538d5739df > > It defines "%license" to expand to "%doc" if %_licensedir is not defined. > Seemingly that was needed in 2014; why would that have changed? Okay, I have found the origin of this line, but it's only used for EPEL 5/6 compatibility. If you're not going to put this in EPEL 5 or 6, please remove it. > > > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. > > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > > Let's see if any of the nonsense rpmlint complains about really needs > to be addressed with the updated spec file. > > > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > > Dep for glibc-headers missing for /usr/include/sys > > Dep for pkgconfig missing for /usr/lib(64)/pkgconfig > > Okay, but this rule seems totally arbitrary: there are numerous packages > where this is not the case, just check some of those: > > rpm -qf /usr/include/sys/* | sort -u > rpm -qf /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/* | sort -u I don't know how you get this to return nothing, on F21: [puiterwijk@bofh ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/* | sort -u | head GeoIP-devel-1.6.5-1.fc21.x86_64 R-core-devel-3.1.3-1.fc21.x86_64 SDL-devel-1.2.15-17.fc21.x86_64 SDL2-devel-2.0.3-4.fc21.x86_64 SDL2_image-devel-2.0.0-7.fc21.x86_64 SDL2_mixer-devel-2.0.0-7.fc21.x86_64 SDL2_net-devel-2.0.0-2.fc21.x86_64 SDL2_ttf-devel-2.0.12-4.fc21.x86_64 Xaw3d-devel-1.6.2-7.fc21.x86_64 accountsservice-devel-0.6.39-2.fc21.x86_64 [puiterwijk@bofh ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/include/sys/* | sort -u | head alsa-lib-devel-1.0.28-2.fc21.x86_64 glibc-headers-2.20-8.fc21.x86_64 libacl-devel-2.2.52-7.fc21.x86_64 libcap-devel-2.24-7.fc21.x86_64 systemtap-sdt-devel-2.7-1.fc21.x86_64 Also: the fact "Nobody does it, thus I don't have to do it" is just... wrong. > > > [!]: SourceX is a working URL. > > Please use the github tarball urls: > > https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl/archive/v1.4.tar.gz > > This is actually bad advice: those tarballs that github creates dynamically > are > git snapshots for certain tags. They do not include generated files like > configure, etc. and they don't work in the context of SourceX. > > We could make them work by adding autoconf + automake to the dependencies > and by > running autoreconf, but that is not recommended. You can also upload your own tarballs to github for a release you created (https://help.github.com/articles/creating-releases/). You should REALLY consider making sane releases, since that also makes it a lot easier for people to check your package and for other people (non-Fedora users) to pick it up. -- 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