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: NNTPGrab - Usenet download program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427034 ------- Additional Comments From erik-fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-11 14:51 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=291414) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=291414&action=view) spec file for NNTPGrab, with feedback from comment #1 New srpm can be found at http://www.nntpgrab.nl/fedora/nntpgrab-0.2.1-3.fc9.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) > * disttag > - Please consider to use %{?dist} tag. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag Added in the Release field > * URL > - Perhaps URL contains some typo :) Fixed > * Seemingly unneeded Provides > - Why do you want to make -plugins subpackage have > "Provides: nntpgrab-plugin-nntp" or so? > > - Also, "Obsoletes: nntpgrab-plugin-nntp" seems unneeded > as perhaps Fedora has never had nntpgrab-plugin-nntp > rpm. This is because in a previous version of the .spec file, there were sub-packages for each individual plugin. There already are several users which have installed this previous version. Before proposing this package into Fedora, I decided to merge those sub-packages to one -plugins sub-package. So to provide the old users a seamless upgrade once this package hits Fedora, I had to use the provides/obsoletes trick. > * Dependency between subpackage > - -devel subpackage should have > "Requires: %{name}-core = %{version}-%{release}" Fixed > * %configure > - %configure should be moved to %build. Fixed > * Vendor name of desktop file > - Usually the vendor id of desktop file should be "fedora". > Do you want to have desktop file named "NNTPGrab-nntpgrab.desktop"? Vendor for the desktop file changed to 'fedora' > * libtool .la file <-> .so symlink > - libtool .la file should be removed unless needed. Instead > the symlink %{_libdir}/libnntpgrab.so should _not_ be removed > and this symlink should be included in -devel subpackage. Added the file %{_libdir}/libnntpgrab.so to the -devel subpackage. > * defattr > - We now recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-) Fixed > * Directory ownership issue > - %{_includedir}/nntpgrab is not owned by any packages. Fixed (I hope, couldn't find any good documentation about directory ownerships) > * Dependency for -devel pacakage > - %_libdir/pkgconfig/nntpgrab.pc contains the line: > -------------------------------------------------------- > 9 Requires: glib-2.0 > -------------------------------------------------------- > Also %_includedir/nntpgrab/nntpgrab.h contains > -------------------------------------------------------- > 22 #include <glib.h> > -------------------------------------------------------- > This means that -devel subpackage should have > "Requires: glib2-devel". Fixed > ? plugins > - By the way, if all files in -plugins package under %_libdir > directory are only used as plugins called by only dlopen, is > it possible > - to move all plugins to some unique directory only used > by nntpgrab, for example %_libdir/nntpgrab > - and "rename" (not symlink) libnntpgrab_plugin_nntp.so.0.0.0 to > libnntpgrab_plugin_nntp.so, for example (as dlopen'ed > file name is libnntpgrab_plugin_nntp.so) > (not a blocker) ? For now, I've removed all the symlinks for the plugins and renamed them to name_of_plugin.so. For the next version of NNTPGrab I will put the plugins in a seperate directory (/usr/lib/nntpgrab) -- 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