Bug 188666
| Summary: | Review Request: gucharmap | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Matthias Clasen <mclasen> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | David Cantrell <dcantrell> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-04-19 22:06:43 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 188268 | ||
|
Description
Matthias Clasen
2006-04-12 01:15:50 UTC
Good: - Builds w/ mock Bad: - no ldconfig in %posts - unversioned library must go in -devel package - Header files not in -devel package (not completely necessary) - no %doc for README, NEWS, etc... - .desktop file not installed properly via desktop-file-install Do we really want to split this into three packages ? - the app - the library - the -devel It was my understanding that we sometimes don't bother to do that for small packages. But if it is the policy to always do these splits, then I'm happy to do it. Personally, I think it's overkill and that we probably will want to revisit that policy as we start following the same thing everywhere. This will become especially true when we want to use the existence of a -devel subpackage to key that a package should be included as a multilib package. I agree w/ jeremy. I can let this package go through w/out a -devel package. The other issues still apply. New spec: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gucharmap.spec http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gucharmap-1.6.0-3.src.rpm New spec: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gucharmap.spec http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gucharmap-1.6.0-4.src.rpm Jeremy convinced me to split off a -devel package... Still not using desktop-file-install to install the .desktop file in %install. Also review guidelines for desktop-database scriptlets http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-d37d740d062d3aa6013aab44a79de88a6c1fe533 Requires(post) and Requires(postun) do need to be filled out. Jesse, why should I consider ScripletSnippets to be part of the packaging guidelines ? it is not even linked from there. You can drop the BuildRequires for glib2-devel, since the gtk2-devel package will pull this in. Yet another version, adding more requires and also adding BuildRequires to make sure that the docs are being built. New spec: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gucharmap.spec http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gucharmap-1.6.0-5.src.rpm Changes look good. THe scripletsnippets is referential for now, as it is not linked. That would have to be approved by the board. I mostly wanted you to be aware it was there and take a look at what pertains to this package. I see no show stoppers, but at some point you might want to narrow down the scrollkeeper update call to a specific dir, but not necessary for initial release. Approving. Under the devel package don't you want to require gucharmap =
%{version}-%{release}, instead of just the %version?
|