Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libp11 - a small library for dealing with PKCS#11 tokens https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245081 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-20 21:28 EST ------- A few comments: The scriptlets are a bit odd. You probably just want to use %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig and delete %preun entirely. See the "Shared libraries" section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets. You should use an actual ASCII dash in the changelog. Not only is that mandated by the packaging guidelines, but since the web server hosting the specfile serves it as ISO-8859-1, it shows up as garbage. Probably easiest to just avoid the pain. The SRPM is clean according to rpmlint, but the built package sure isn't. I'll address the complaints: W: libp11 no-documentation This is OK as long as there really is no documentation. However, that sure doesn't seem to be the case, with nice doc and examples directories in the source tarball. You should at least include README and Changelog files. If you have development documentation, you should include that in the -devel subpackage (see below). E: libp11 postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libp11.so.0.1.1 W: libp11 one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig W: libp11 empty-%preun W: libp11 empty-%postun Will go away if you call ldconfig properly and clean up the empty scriptlet as detailed earlier. W: libp11 devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libp11.so W: libp11 devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libp11.pc W: libp11 devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/libp11.h W: libp11 devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libp11.a These shouldn't be in the main package. You need a libp11-devel subpackage to hold the unversioned .so link, the .pc file and the headers. You will need a libp11-static subpackage to hold the static library. E: libp11 explicit-lib-dependency libtool I can't imagine how a runtime library could need libtool. I don't even see how the -devel subpackage could need it, although I could be wrong. What's it for? W: libp11 no-version-in-last-changelog W: libp11-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog Please version your changelog entries. See the "Changelogs" section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review