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: qmmp - Qt-based multimedia player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=280751 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2007-11-19 07:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #10) > > * buildroot does not match the buildroot mandated by the guidelines > > there is: > > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root > > reading the guidelines > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b4fdd45fa76cbf54c885ef0836361319ab962473 > > The recommended values for the BuildRoot tag are (in descending order of > preference) : > %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root > > so it matches exactly the third line from the guidelines, what is the problem? > Ah, the third line in the guidelines is new (AFAIK) in the past only the first 2 were allowed, my bad. > > * BuildRequires line longer then 80 chars, please split this up in multiple > > lines each starting with BuildRequires: > > * desktop-file-install line longer then 80 chars, please split this up in > > multiple lines. > > done > > btw, where comes this requirement from? - reading the guidelines, I see that > only the Description cannot have lines longer than 80 chars > Readability in a terminal based editor, AFAIK everyone wraps all lines in the spec files at 80 chars. > > * use %defattr(-,root,root,-) > > done > > ... but this produces the following rpmlint error: > qmmp.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/qmmp 0601 > > I am confused where this comes from, since the compiled qmmp binary has 755 > and I see no change on install of that file > > unfortunately, the executable not being readable means that the included > resources are unusable, effectively disabling translations > Nasty, I'll try to reproduce this and see if I can come up with a fix. > > * put %doc directly under %defattr > > done > > btw, once again, where this requirement comes from? > Readability / consistency, this is how everyone (almost everyone) else does it. > > * drop %{?_smp_mflags}, if it fails on some systems it must be dropped, the > fact > > that it happens to work on others is not relevant, we don't want a > lottery, we > > want reproducable builds > > ok ... but I thought that it would be better to fix one b0rk3n machine than > crippling the build everywhere > Its not a broken machine %{?_smp_mflags} with badly written makefiles will break builds depending on timing, its a race condition problem, which depends on timing, which will change depeding on workload and speed of the machine. > > * add: "Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig" > and "Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig" > > done > > btw, is that documented somewhere? - I took inspiration from another packages > providing libraries and did not see that, so I expect there is a _lot_ of > packages broken this way in the repos > Normally for libraries you use: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig And then /sbin/ldconfig gets used as script interpreter (interpreting an empty script), which will automatically add the Requires. > new files: > Spec URL: http://sn.bluehost.cz/tmp/no-mp3/qmmp.spec > SRPM URL: http://sn.bluehost.cz/tmp/no-mp3/qmmp-0.1.4-4.fc8.src.rpm > > however, this is unusable because of the abovementioned problem with > permissions :-( Good work sofar I'll see if I can recreate the permission problem and figure out whats going on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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