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: libspe2 - SPE Runtime Management Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442507 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-29 18:28 EST ------- I never did a full review, but rpmlint isn't silent for me here and I got many packages reviewed until now, so let's try to fix the main things first. libspe2.src:30: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib -> %_libdir redefined libspe2.src:107: W: setup-not-quiet - Replace "%setup" by "%setup -q" libspe2.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 151, tab: line 127) -> Yeah, don't mix spaces and tabs inside of the spec file ;-) libspe2.src: W: non-standard-group Cell Development Libraries -> Please choose a valid group from /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS, I think for the library packages, "System Environment/Libraries" should maybe fit and for packages with header and development files, maybe "Development/Libraries", just have a look to the list yourself. libspe2.src: W: invalid-license LGPL -> Please be more precise and select a valid license tag from the wiki list http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing libspe2.src: E: unknown-key GPG#77550217 -> Did you put a key somewhere into the package?! libspe2.src: W: strange-permission libspe2-2.2.0-91.tar.gz 0600 libspe2.src: W: strange-permission libspe2.spec 0600 -> chmod 644 to both files before executing rpmbuild Aside of rpmlint: - Please kill/remove the vendor tag, Fedora inserts it's own - Set buildroot tag to something valid from the Packaging Guidelines - Kill/remove the distribution tag, not needed/wished in Fedora - Don't do things like "%define _libdir /usr/lib", this is all already in the rpm-redhat-config rpm package - Change "Requires: %{name} = %{version}" to "Requires: %{name} = %{version}- %{release}" - Don't abuse release tag as mentioned in comment #4 - Does %WITH_WRAPPER really make sense? For Fedora you can't define such switches directly as you never can't call rpmbuild directly, maybe decide for one flavor or build both in parallel, if they can co-exist?! - Don't define %{_initdir} and friends, already in rpm-redhat-config rpm package - What is %_adabindingdir and %_includedir2? They don't look LSB conform, includes have to go into %{_includedir} or in a subdirectory, not directly into /usr/somewhere - Please remove %_unpackaged_files_terminate_build - remove unneeded files or use the %exclude macro - Initscript should contain maybe an LSB/upstart compatible header section as well - at least it would be nice for the future. - Is it necessary do enable the initscript/service per default? - Does the initscript really show [ OK ] and [FAILED]? I don't think so... - Please use %doc e.g. for README, COPYING, LICENSE or whatelse exists - Eliminate %set_optflags macro usage, just use OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" at the make command itself, %optflags also knows how to handle noarch packages - I can't see any build requires. Please note, the package has to rebuild successfully in mock (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Mock) of Fedora so you have to list all main dependencies to build the package - Don't ship static libs, please (no *.a) P.S.: I had a talk with Jochen, I thought he wrote a more sane spec file - can we maybe see that one and maybe review his one, as Jochen told me that he tried to follow the guidelines of Fedora already more than the current SRPM is doing. -- 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