https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #27 from Gustavo Lima Chaves <gustavo.lima.chaves@xxxxxxxxx> --- > Hi Gustavo, Hi, Paulo! > 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. We want to start packaging the soletta framework (library, devel headers and tools), but soon we'd also like to package another part of the framework -- Soletta Dev App (https://github.com/solettaproject/soletta-dev-app). That's a web-based environment that sits on the target board and exposes a web page where a developer can interact with soletta in a visual way to test his/her flow-based programming programs. No hurry, though, I'll start and get it right with Soletta solely first. It would be cool, though, to have it all in the same spec. Is that your concern, we'd have to start with all in there right away? > > > ---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 That's already done locally here, as I got the same feedback from some folks at IRC. > > > ---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} Okay. Do we make updates and changelog bumps here in process of package review too (before any publishment)? That's a doubt I had before and no formal answer came yet. > > ---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. Fair, will do. > > > ---8<--- > Please explain what did you mean with the line > %{?%{name}_debug_package} > in the spec file. I guess I can remove that, as the -debug package is built anyway (I just wanted to make sure it's generated). > > > ---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 :) > I did test it reasonably on f22 and I'll start testing it harder on f23, don't worry. To explain the linux-micro saga, I'll translate what I said to Hélio (hcastro@xxxxxxxxxx) at #soletta: Soletta has a platform module with 2 possible backends: systemd on linux-micro (the latter being targeted to smaller linux systems with no systemd, in which case it tries to emulate some of the things systemd would provide). The thing is we only detect we're on a systemd-capable system if systemd's version is at least 221 (I think we did that for sd-bus API usage we rely on). Thus, that decision -- when packaging for f23+, we put systemd as our platform, otherwise, we get linux-micro. Now, linux-micro is separated in modules, too, because a user might want not to have all the platform functionality we provide. That's why it has a couple of packages just for it, as well. > > ---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). Fair, thanks. > > > ---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 > Okay. > > ---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. What I mentioned was WIP, that's why it's not published here yet. I decided to answer you first, but soon I'll land the updated SRPM and stuff, right? > > > ---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 Mm, okay. Can I ask which of the tools gave you the output so I can trace it here too? I'll exercize all of them, just in case. Thanks a lot for you support! -- 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