[Bug 1492746] Review Request: renderdoc - stand-alone graphics debugger

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492746

Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> ---
 - Any particular reasons you're packaging version 0.34 instead of the latest,
version 0.91?

 - The update-mime-database scriplets should not be used on Fedora > 23. See
the note in
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Scriptlets&oldid=481889#mimeinfo

 - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

 - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install

 - You must validate the .desktop file. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop

 - Headers file should indeed go in a separate -devel subpackage. With
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so too

 - The main lib in the main package *must* be versionned
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0.n
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning
:

>In cases where upstream ships unversioned .so library (so this is not needed 
>for plugins, drivers, etc.), the packager MUST try to convince upstream to >start 
>versioning it.
>
>If that fails due to unwilling or unresposive upstream, the packager may start 
>versioning downstream but this must be done with caution and ideally only in 
>rare cases. We don't want to create a library that could conflict with upstream 
>if they later start providing versioned shared libraries. Under no 
>circumstances should the unversioned library be shipped in Fedora.

 - Please make use of pkgconfig for the rest of your devel BR:

# for the local swig
BuildRequires:  autoconf
BuildRequires:  automake
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(libpcre)

# for the renderdoc itself
BuildRequires:  cmake
BuildRequires:  desktop-file-utils
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(vulkan)
BuildRequires:  bison
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(python3)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(x11)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(xcb)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(xcb-keysyms)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(gl)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(Qt5)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(Qt5X11Extras)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(Qt5Svg)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(xcb-keysyms)
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme

 - BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase is not needed as it will be installed with
qt5-qtbase-devel

 - The version is missing from yoir %changelog:

* Mon Jun 19 2017 Christian Kellner <ckellner@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.91-1

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux