Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: gtksourceview2 - GtkSourceView v2.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246046 ------- Additional Comments From toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-29 16:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > * Package won't build as is. You need to specify -n gtksourceview to the %setup > macro. > > It certainly built as is here, and it already has > %setup -n gtksourceview-%{version} I certainly wondered how that got all the way to review :-) Good: * spec name matches package name * Licensed under the GPL which is an open source license. * License text included * Spec file is clear and easy to read * Sources match upstream * Builds in mock on x86_64 devel * Uses %find_lang to find locale files. * ldconfig called on %post * Owns all created directories * No duplicate files * Permissions set correctly except as noted in the rpmlint section below * %clean used * Proper use of macros for directory paths * Included doc files are reasonable for the packages. * -devel package includes the headers and requires pkgconfig * -devel has proper requires on the base package * No *.la files and no static libraries Rpmlint Output: E: gtksourceview2 non-executable-script /usr/share/gtksourceview-2.0/language-specs/check.sh 0644 E: gtksourceview2 non-executable-script /usr/share/gtksourceview-2.0/language-specs/convert.py 0644 These are a bit strange. Upstream has these in their Makefile.am as:: languages_DATA = $(LANGUAGES) language.rng language2.rng language.dtd \ check.sh convert.py They appear to be scripts to aid developers in creating new *.lang files for gtksourceview. For now you can get rid of the rpmlint warning by chmod a+x the files. Longer term it seems like upstream should consider either not installing them or installing them to a bin directory as something like gtksourceview-check-lang and gtksourceview-convert-lang. W: gtksourceview2-devel no-documentation Ignorable. There actually is documentation here but not marked as such. You could mark the gtk-doc API docs as %doc if you want but we're also trying to get a patch into rpm to mark those automatically just like man files and things in %{_docdir} Bad: * Missing BuildRequire: pcre-devel * Only a subset of the *.lang files pass the check.sh script. Running convert.py over those files yields a file that check.sh will validate. We can convert all the non-validating files with commands like this: for baselang in R boo d docbook lua msil nemerle spec vbnet vhdl ; do ./convert.py $baselang.lang > $baselang mv $baselang $baselang.lang done Maybe we should do this in the spec file for now and submit a patch for the issue upstream? Pending: * Package does not follow the naming guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#MultiplePackages In this case, the Guidelines specify that the latest version should be [basename] and previous versions should be [basename][version]. I sent a message to fedora-packaging to try and get this restriction removed. -- 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