Bug 165488

+ the package builds in mock/x86_64     
+ rpmlint     
W: wmapmload no-version-in-last-changelog    
W: wmapmload-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog    
     
  These can be ignored.     
     
+ package name follows the guideline     
+ package follows packaging guidelines     
+ license is valid, matches upstream and is included    
+ spec file is legible and is written in American English     
+ source matches upstream     
+ Requires and BR OK     
+ files ownership OK    
    
Approved.  
  
There is no need to pack the ChangeLog in %doc, as this is mainly developper  
information, you can drop it. 
 
There is no need to list the man page in %files as this is done automatically. 

(In reply to comment #1)
> + the package builds in mock/x86_64     
> + rpmlint     
> W: wmapmload no-version-in-last-changelog    
> W: wmapmload-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog    
>      
>   These can be ignored.

They are also trivially fixed, so they might as well be fixed. The version
number is actually specified in the spec file, but the packager's editor has
word-wrapped it onto the next line. Joining the two lines together will fix the
problem, e.g.:

* Fri Jun 03 2005 Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert[AT]lowlatency.de> 2.9-1
- Initial Release

> + package name follows the guideline     
> + package follows packaging guidelines     
> + license is valid, matches upstream and is included    
> + spec file is legible and is written in American English     
> + source matches upstream     
> + Requires and BR OK     
> + files ownership OK    
>     
> Approved.  
>   
> There is no need to pack the ChangeLog in %doc, as this is mainly developper  
> information, you can drop it.

Whilst it's mainly developer information, there are a few things in there of
interest to end users. Personally I would include it.

On the other hand, I would drop the README file, which is about how to build the
app, and include instead HINTS, which is about how to run it.

> There is no need to list the man page in %files as this is done automatically.

That is not true, at least not in any version of rpm I've ever used.

I should really make some default text for this:
Splitting up rpmdate and version is agreed to be ok in my case as my name/mail
is quiet long.

As to ChangeLog and README... I don't know quiet yet whats the best way for
this. I will leave it without ChangeLog for now till next release.

>> There is no need to list the man page in %files as this is done  
>> automatically.  
  
> That is not true, at least not in any version of rpm I've ever used.  
  
This link disagrees with you. ;-)  
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html#S3-RPM-INSIDE-DOCDIR-DIRECTIVE  
  
By default the doc, info and man directories are searched for documents. 
 
Regarding the next issue, which files goes into %doc, I trust your judgement. 

(In reply to comment #4)
> >> There is no need to list the man page in %files as this is done  
> >> automatically.  
>   
> > That is not true, at least not in any version of rpm I've ever used.  
>   
> This link disagrees with you. ;-)  
>
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html#S3-RPM-INSIDE-DOCDIR-DIRECTIVE


No, that agrees with me. About two thirds of the way down that page, it says:

  %docdir only directs RPM to mark the specified directory as holding
  documentation. It doesn't direct RPM to package any files in the
  directory

> By default the doc, info and man directories are searched for documents.

It means that any files you specify in the %files list that are in directories
marked as %docdir are treated as documentation, which will be excluded if the
package is installed using --excludedocs. This includes manpages, info etc. by
default. However, you still need to include the manpages etc. in the %files list.

If you try commenting out the manpages from the %files list, you'll find that
rpmbuild complains about unpackaged files.

Precisely, it means that by default files in %_defaultdocdir, %_infodir and
%_mandir are given the %doc attribute implicitly.

The full list of dirs for which (+ all their subdirs) this happens: from rpm 
CVS, build/files.c (processPackageFiles()): 
 
    /usr/doc 
    /usr/man 
    /usr/info 
    /usr/X11R6/man 
    /usr/share/doc 
    /usr/share/man 
    /usr/share/info 
    %{_docdir} 
    %{_mandir} 
    %{_infodir} 
    %{_javadocdir} 

Thanks for the information, we (I) learn a new thing everyday. :-) 

Normalize summary field for easy parsing

*** Bug 177832 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***