[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546

Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
                   |                            |ade@xxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #26 from Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Hi Gustavo,
We talked briefly in Latinoware, and I understand you want
this package in Fedora :) And I am sure it would be very
useful. I do not know if you want to package other software,
otherwise, an easier plan would be to approach a packager,
that would package it for you. So, at first I would like
to know if you only plan to package solleta for Fedora :)

I believe the package is in good shape, but I would like
a reply for the issues below.


---8<---
I suggest just using solleta for the package, no need for lib%{name},
unless you can give a good reason for that, in which case, should
rename the package to libsolleta. For example, instead of

%package -n lib%{name}-flow-module-accelerometer

have

%package flow-module-accelerometer


---8<---
Please put version information in the Version tag, not in the
Release tag, and bump Release every time you make an update.
For example, instead of

Version: %{soletta_major}.%{soletta_minor}.%{soletta_build}
Release: 0.1.%{soletta_tag}%{?dist}

have

Version: %{soletta_major}.%{soletta_minor}.%{soletta_build}.%{soletta_tag}
Release: 1%{?dist}

---8<---
The license should be "BSD and MIT". And I am afraid probably actually
be "BSD and MIT and GPLv2+", due to files under tools/kconfig/lxdialog
The files are not part of runtime, but are in the tarball. duktape
files are under MIT license.


---8<---
Please explain what did you mean with the line
%{?%{name}_debug_package}
in the spec file.


---8<---
Also please explain a bit about linux-micro in fedora < 23, and
systemd in newer fedora. Did you test it in newer Fedora? I suppose
you tested the package, interacting with real hardware on f22 :)


---8<---
You do not need to write

%dir %{_includedir}/soletta
%{_includedir}/soletta/*

Just write

%{_includedir}/soletta/

The ending / will make it clear is is a directory (and contents).


---8<---
Kind of related to above, you should move ownership of base
directories to a package required by all subpackages, for example,
instead of having in -devel this:

%dir %{_datadir}/soletta/flow/descriptions
...
%dir %{_datadir}/soletta/flow/descriptions/...

make the main package owner of the directory, with:

%dir %{_datadir}/soletta/flow/descriptions


---8<---
>From reading above, you should be working on it, but I see
there are several test subdirectories, but the latest spec
does not have a %check section. You should run the tests, and
give explanations (can be just a comment in the spec) where it
is expected to fail.


---8<---
You should fix the wrong permissions. Better to find out form
where they are coming. Likely from CP="cp -p". In the worst
case, just run something like
find %{buildroot} -perm 0775 | xargs chmod 0755
in %install

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]