Bug 503967
| Summary: | Review Request: mobile-broadband-provider-info - database of mobile broadband providers | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dan Williams <dcbw> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Warren Togami <wtogami> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, lemenkov, notting, wtogami |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | wtogami:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-10-20 22:41:34 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: | |||
|
Description
Dan Williams
2009-06-03 15:17:11 UTC
Version: 20090602
Will this always be versioned by the date? Perhaps "0.20090602" might be better to allow for real version numbers in the future without Epoch?
BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
This isn't even used by modern rpmbuild. Doesn't need to be so complicated.
ExclusiveArch: noarch
Please use "BuildArch: noarch" instead, except the next problem...
[warren@newcaprica noarch]$ rpmlint mobile-broadband-provider-info-20090602-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
mobile-broadband-provider-info.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/mobile-broadband-provider-info.pc
This is a serious problem. Note the lib64 dir. Perhaps you can't make this noarch if you want to use pkgconfig?
[warren@newcaprica SRPMS]$ rpmlint mobile-broadband-provider-info-20090602-1.fc11.src.rpm
mobile-broadband-provider-info.src:25: W: make-check-outside-check-section make check
mobile-broadband-provider-info.src:38: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %attr(0644,root,root) %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}.pc
(In reply to comment #1) > Version: 20090602 > > Will this always be versioned by the date? Perhaps "0.20090602" might be > better to allow for real version numbers in the future without Epoch? Done. > BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) > > This isn't even used by modern rpmbuild. Doesn't need to be so complicated. Recommended by packaging guidelines. > ExclusiveArch: noarch > > Please use "BuildArch: noarch" instead, except the next problem... Done. > [warren@newcaprica noarch]$ rpmlint > mobile-broadband-provider-info-20090602-1.fc11.noarch.rpm > mobile-broadband-provider-info.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/mobile-broadband-provider-info.pc > > This is a serious problem. Note the lib64 dir. Perhaps you can't make this > noarch if you want to use pkgconfig? Removed. > [warren@newcaprica SRPMS]$ rpmlint > mobile-broadband-provider-info-20090602-1.fc11.src.rpm > mobile-broadband-provider-info.src:25: W: make-check-outside-check-section make > check Fixed. > mobile-broadband-provider-info.src:38: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main > package) %attr(0644,root,root) %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}.pc removed. Spec URL: http://bigw.org/~dan/mobile-broadband-provider-info.spec SRPM URL: http://bigw.org/~dan/mobile-broadband-provider-info-0.20090602-1.fc12.src.rpm URL fixed, build instructions added, nvr updated. Spec URL: http://bigw.org/~dan/mobile-broadband-provider-info.spec SRPM URL: http://bigw.org/~dan/mobile-broadband-provider-info-0.20090602-2.fc12.src.rpm APPROVED New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mobile-broadband-provider-info Short Description: Mobile broadband provider database Owners: dcbw Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: CVS done. What's the status of this ticket? I see that mobile-broadband-provider-info already included in F-11, but I can't find signs of it in F-10. Is something wrong with F-10 branch of mobile-broadband-provider-info? |