https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #5 from Gustavo Lima Chaves <gustavo.lima.chaves@xxxxxxxxx> --- > I can't sponsor you, but I can give some suggestions. Thanks a lot for the suggestions, Christopher! I guess Fidencio and I will continue fine with this (thank you too, Panda!). > > 1. Please include your email in changelog. Done. I really wish I could have a single, initial changelog for an initial packaging attempt. Is that possible? > > You can try rpmdev-bumpspec to see what exactly is changelog, obviously the > current one is poor. > > 2. "%define soletta_major 0 > %define soletta_minor 0 > %define soletta_build 1 > %define soletta_release beta5" > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define Thanks a lot, I won't forget. > > 3. Drop Group tags in all packages. Okay, better for me. > > 4. It's better to put %post(un/trans) after %install/%check but before %files. Done. > > 5. "This package contains the sysctl linux-micro module for %{name}. The > module sets kernel parameters from sysctl.conf files. This service > will mimic systemd-sysctl.service and read the settings from > '/etc/sysctl.conf' or '/run/sysctl.d', '/etc/sysctl.d', > '/usr/local/lib/sysctl.d', '/usr/lib/sysctl.d', '/lib/sysctl.d'. Files > are processed in alphabetical order. See > http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-sysctl.service.html. > " > > Sorry, we don't use some of these paths. Please remove them. All linux-micro modules were moved to the base lib package, so these texts are no more. I did that because linux-micro would eventually vanish in a f23 version of the spec. > > 6. The build log is silent, I could only see > > GEN * > CC * > LD * > BIN * Well, by default our build log IS indeed silent. You can see all that's happening with V=1, if you wish. > > This makes it impossible to detect if it's been built correctly: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags > > You must compile packages with %optflags and %__global_ldflags for linking, > note these need to be inserted, but not substituted of all flags since you > might use some custom flags as well. Nevertheless, I added those, thanks. The only "strange" output you'll see there are cpio errors when trying to generate debug symbols for the duktape (JavaScript) sub-module. There's an open ticket for the lib authors to remove #line directives from their released code, that should vanish soon (next release, maybe). > > 7. Drop %defattr(-, root, root, -) Done. > > 8. %{_includedir}/soletta/* > > No, you forgot %{_includedir}/soletta/ itself, this will only include files > underneath the dir without dir itself. Ok, various %dir added. > > 9. Same as above, %{_datadir}/soletta and %{_libdir}/soletta weren't included, > but since different subpackages put files inside, you need to decide on your > own. Ditto. > > 10. You use %license, but put it in lib%{name}-pin-mux-module-Edison only, > that's wrong, you should put it into lib%{name}. (because every subpkg depends > on it based on the spec from my view) Now it happens just after the main lib's files. > > 11. I don't see any packages with name %{name}, so isn't it better to rename > this spec to libsoletta? I intend to package other things on the soletta project umbrella here. Namely https://github.com/solettaproject/soletta-dev-app is the next candidate, so... > > 12 Last question, do we really need such many subpackages? 11 of them were merged with the main lib now. The others I'd like to keep -- they are optional for most use cases and may require different deps. Again, thanks a lot for the review. I'll have this new spec uploaded soon for you to see. -- 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