Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471527 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-14 11:50:54 EDT --- Well: * License - License is MIT. * %{version} tag in SourceURL - I recommend to use %{version} tag in SourceURL. With this you probably won't have to modify the SourceURL when version is upgraded. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D * Requires - "Requires: openssl" is redundant. This type of library dependency related Requires are automatically detected by rpmbuild itself (but see below) * General rpmlint issue - Please check your srpm/binary rpms with rpmlint (in rpmlint rpm) to detect some general packaging issues. ---------------------------------------------- snmp++.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot .... snmp++.src: E: summary-too-long ... snmp++.src: E: description-line-too-long ... ---------------------------------------------- The meaning of the above errors/warnings can be shown by "$ rpmlint -I summary-ended-with-dot", for example. - Summary should not end with dot. - Summary must not exceed 79 characters - One line in %description must not exceed 79 characters * CFLAGS - Fedora specific compilation flags are not correctly honored. You can check what flags are used on Fedora by "$ rpm --eval %optflags". Passing 'USEROPTS="%{optflags}"' to "make" works for this package. * Macors - Use macros for standard directories. /usr should be %{_prefix}: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros * "shared library" with no soname - Well, the rebuilt "shared library" libsnmp++.so has no soname (-Wl,-soname is not used). In this case, ABI of this library may change in the future silently, and then all applications linking against this library silently. In such case I think we should not provide this "broken" "shared library" and only ship static archive. Would you follow this and the link below of "Static libraries only" case? - In this case the main package "snmp++" package becomes empty, so only -devel package must be created (and main "snmp++" package should not be created). -devel subpackage contains static archive, header files and some document files in this case. "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" should be removed and "Provides: %{name}-%{version}" should be added. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review