https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988667 Gergely Polonkai <gergely@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #1129723 is| | obsolete| | --- Comment #17 from Gergely Polonkai <gergely@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Created attachment 1142088 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1142088&action=edit .spec file for valadoc 0.30 (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #16) > In order of importance: > - Source0: > https://git.gnome.org/browse/valadoc/snapshot/valadoc-valac-%{version}.tar.xz Thanks, I’m not too good with git web frontends, I’d have never found it (although I could have asked…) > > - %{_libdir}/libvaladoc.so should be in -devel, not in the main package No it shouldn’t. ldd shows that the valadoc binary uses libvaladoc.so > > - there's no license file listed in %files I have added the project’s COPYING file (GPL v2) > > - why do you delete the single .mo file? A comment in the spec file would be > nice. TBH I was copying the .spec of another project of mine and left that line there accidentally (note the name "swe-glib" in the path) > > - URL seems wrong. It should point to the project page for valadoc (see > comment #11), and not the website containing generated docs. Current URL is > useful though, it might be worth putting it in %description > ("\nDocumentation for various projects written in vala can be found at > <URL>.") The only official page I could find is the project page on wiki.gnome.org; I have added that and put this old URL to the description as you suggested > > - %description has an empty line at the top fixed > > - %description should be extended a bit to say something that valadoc > extracts documentation from the source code (or whatever, I'm just guessing > here). I have added some more text, but I’m not really good at this. I will look into this deeper soon. > > - %post/%postun scriptlets require shell unnecessarily, %post -p > /sbin/ldconfig is better > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging: > ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries]. Fixed that, thanks for the link > > - %{buildroot} is preferred to $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and it's considered bad style > to use both I have fixed that. I also added a / between %{buildroot} and %{_libdir} for the sake of readability, but I’m not sure if it should be there > > - You can use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags} and %make_install > instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}. More consise. I fixed that. I hope I got it right -- You are receiving this mail because: 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