[Bug 1991208] Review Request: pluma-plugins - Modules for the pluma text editor

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991208



--- Comment #7 from Wolfgang Ulbrich <fedora@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Thank you for taking the review.

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #4)
> (In reply to Wolfgang Ulbrich from comment #2)
> 
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - In a multiple licensing scenario, the license breakdown must be described:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios
> 
>   In this case, what is licensed LGPLv2+?  I only see the GPLv2+ in play.

Done.
> 
> - Add "%license COPYING" to %files.

Done.
> 
> - Note that Provides have been generated for two of the plugins:
> 
>   libbookmarks.so()(64bit)
>   libwordcompletion.so()(64bit)
> 
>   Since they are in a private subdirectory of %{_libdir}, I don't think this
> is
>   right.  Something like this in this specfile should prevent it:
> 
>   %global __provides_exclude_from ^%{_libdir}/pluma/plugins

Done.
> 
> - In %build, use "%make_build V=1" instead of the explicit make invocation. 
> See
>   https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make

Done.
> 
> - Look at the first item under "EXTRA items" below.  Is it possible to make
>   a noarch subpackage to hold most or all of the files under /usr/share?

I moved all files exept libs, gsettings and metainfo files to
pluma-plugins-data
> 
> - Note the unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings in the rpmlint section
> below.
>   That indicates that this project has run afoul of a long-standing libtool
> bug:
>   it reorders -Wl,--as-needed *after* the libraries to be linked against,
>   rendering it useless.  I usually put this between %configure and
> %make_build
>   for projects that use libtool:
> 
> # Get rid of undesirable hardcoded rpaths; workaround libtool reordering
> # -Wl,--as-needed after all the libraries.
> sed -e 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' \
>     -e 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' \
>     -e 's|CC="\(.*g..\)"|CC="\1 -Wl,--as-needed"|' \
>     -i libtool
> 
>   If you don't have rpath problems, then the 3rd sed expression may be all
> you need.

Done.
Anything left?


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




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

  Powered by Linux