https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #3 from jan@xxxxxxxxx --- (In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #2) > I took a look at the patches and they all seem reasonable. It'd be good to > include comments directly in the spec explaining what they are for, though. Done. > > Source1: https://github.com/codemirror/CodeMirror/archive/5.32.0.tar.gz > > I need to look into this in more detail, but it looks like you're bundling > codemirror. Is this because the version of nodejs-codemirror (4.8) in Fedora > is too old? Upstream includes this into the source - a version which is more recent than the one in Fedora, but older than the one I'm using. I'll have to check how this actually is being used within the build process. > > %setup -q > > You can avoid the patch directives by using the "%autosetup -p1" macro > instead (no -q is needed). It will automatically apply the patches. Modified. > > %{_datarootdir}/%{name} > > You can use %{_datadir} instead of %{_datarootdir} (it's a bit shorter to > type). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros Modified. > > %doc %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz > > Manpages are automatically marked as %doc; you don't need to do it manually. Modified. > > cp $(find | grep desktop$) %{buildroot}/%{_datarootdir}/applications > > It looks like you're using this to install the desktop file. Desktop files > need to be installed using the "desktop-file-install" command, or validated > with "desktop-file-validate". This will ensure the file is valid. Take a > look at this section of the guidelines for more details: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file- > install_usage Thanks for that - I wasn't aware of this particular command. I've changed the SPEC file to match. > Also, please consider writing an AppStream metadata file and submitting it > upstream. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData I'll have a look at this too ;) > > > I'm awaiting some comments before I further push the spec file upstream to the author. > > While you're welcome to do so, this isn't necessary. The authoritative > source of a Fedora package's spec is our own dist-git repositories hosted on > https://src.fedoraproject.org/. Specs don't need to be included in upstream > packages. Upstream already has build instructions & the spec file in their repo, so I'd like to keep this as much in sync as possible in the long run. But for now.. let's keep this rolling. SPEC file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdeluyck/notepadqq-packaging/master/Fedora/notepadqq.spec SRPM file: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5745/23625745/notepadqq-1.2.0-2.fc28.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23625744 -- 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
