Spec URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/librevenge.spec SRPM URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/librevenge-0.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: librevenge is a base library for writing document import filters. It has interfaces for text documents, vector graphics, spreadsheets and presentations. The library will be used by libreoffice 4.3. Fedora Account System Username: dtardon
From first glance you package is good. DIE_RPATH_DIE looks funny. I'll review today ASAP.
> Source: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libwpd/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz use Source0 instead of Source. > %autosetup -p1 use %setup -q and %patch0 -p1, %patch1 -p1 >make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} you could use %make_install instead, but that's not should item.
You should do some work ;) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel -> I don't know what happens.. - librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 -> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency - GPL (v3 or later) - ----------------- - librevenge-0.0.0/data/gdb/auto-load/librevenge-0.0.py - librevenge-0.0.0/data/gdb/auto-load/librevenge-stream-0.0.py -> I think you forget to add this license to list. Probably you should replace LGPLv2+ with GPLv3+ or something - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. -> there no links. could you provide it ? If no - sent to upstream. NOT BLOCKER. - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. -> I think you could patch it. there need '-p' for `install` command. NOT BLOCKER. - Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gdb -> I think for -devel subpackage should be Requires: libstdc++ - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gdb/auto- load/usr(libstdc++), /usr/share/gdb/auto-load(libstdc++, gdb), /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64(libstdc++) -> do not own this dirs. it will be owned by libstdc++. own only files in this directories ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "MPL (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/brain/1100925-librevenge/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gdb [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gdb/auto- load/usr(libstdc++), /usr/share/gdb/auto-load(libstdc++, gdb), /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64(libstdc++) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 266240 bytes in 5 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [-]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in librevenge- doc [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: librevenge-0.0.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm librevenge-devel-0.0.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm librevenge-doc-0.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm librevenge-0.0.0-1.fc21.src.rpm librevenge.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-fix-type-sizes-for-CPPUNIT_ASSERT_EQUAL.patch librevenge.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: 0001-fix-license-headers-for-gdb-printers.patch 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint librevenge-devel librevenge-doc librevenge librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/librevenge-stream-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- librevenge-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config librevenge(x86-64) librevenge-0.0.so.0()(64bit) librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0()(64bit) librevenge-stream-0.0.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(librevenge-0.0) librevenge-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): librevenge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libboost_filesystem.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librevenge-0.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- librevenge-devel: librevenge-devel librevenge-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(librevenge-0.0) pkgconfig(librevenge-generators-0.0) pkgconfig(librevenge-stream-0.0) librevenge-doc: librevenge-doc librevenge: librevenge librevenge(x86-64) librevenge-0.0.so.0()(64bit) librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0()(64bit) librevenge-stream-0.0.so.0()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libwpd/librevenge-0.0.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 46b56f21c05d06cc9d083a3ad7bfccfa75267cfa193289d0db5d55d487c14870 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 46b56f21c05d06cc9d083a3ad7bfccfa75267cfa193289d0db5d55d487c14870 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1100925 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2) > > Source: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libwpd/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz > use Source0 instead of Source. Why? 19 of my 30 packages (not all of them created by myself) use just Source and nobody has ever complained to me. > > > %autosetup -p1 > use %setup -q and %patch0 -p1, %patch1 -p1 No. There is no chance this is ever going to be backported to EPEL-6. > > >make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > you could use %make_install instead, but that's not should item. I am pretty sure that the use of %make_install is prohibited in Fedora.
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) > - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > -> I don't know what happens.. Nonsense. There is no such BR. > > - librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 > -> See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency readelf -d review-librevenge/rpms-unpacked/librevenge-0.0.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/librevenge-0.0.so.0 | grep NEEDED 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libstdc++.so.6] 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libm.so.6] 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libc.so.6] 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libgcc_s.so.1] I do not see any explicit dependency on librevenge-generators... And I do not see libm.so.6 as a problem, as libstdc++.so.6 already needs it anyway. > > - GPL (v3 or later) > - ----------------- > - librevenge-0.0.0/data/gdb/auto-load/librevenge-0.0.py > - librevenge-0.0.0/data/gdb/auto-load/librevenge-stream-0.0.py > -> I think you forget to add this license to list. Probably you should > replace LGPLv2+ with GPLv3+ or something This is apparently checked on unpatched tarball. Patch1 changes these licenses to MPLv2.0/LGPLv2+. (I adapted the pretty printers code from another project of mine and forgot to change the licenses originally.) > > - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > -> there no links. could you provide it ? If no - sent to upstream. NOT > BLOCKER. These patches come from upstream. > > - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > -> I think you could patch it. there need '-p' for `install` command. NOT > BLOCKER. I do not call install manually anywhere... > > - Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gdb libstdc++ owns this on my system. > -> I think for -devel subpackage should be Requires: libstdc++ libstdc++ is already required through librevenge. > - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gdb/auto- > load/usr(libstdc++), /usr/share/gdb/auto-load(libstdc++, gdb), > /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64(libstdc++) > -> do not own this dirs. it will be owned by libstdc++. own only files in > this directories All right, removed.
Spec URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/librevenge.spec SRPM URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/librevenge-0.0.0-2.fc20.src.rpm
(In reply to David Tardon from comment #5) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) > > - librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > > /usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 Or does this mean that librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 needs on libm.so.6, even though it does not use it? If so, then I can only repeat that libm.so.6 is already needed by libstdc++.so.6, so I do not see this as a problem.
(In reply to David Tardon from comment #7) > (In reply to David Tardon from comment #5) > > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) > > > - librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > > > /usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 > > Or does this mean that librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 needs on > libm.so.6, even though it does not use it? If so, then I can only repeat > that libm.so.6 is already needed by libstdc++.so.6, so I do not see this as > a problem. This mean, that you linked with libm.so, but librevenge doesn't using it.(In reply to David Tardon from comment #5) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) > > - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > > -> I don't know what happens.. > > Nonsense. There is no such BR. > > > > > - librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > > /usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 > > -> See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency > > readelf -d > review-librevenge/rpms-unpacked/librevenge-0.0.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/ > librevenge-0.0.so.0 | grep NEEDED > 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libstdc++.so.6] > 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libm.so.6] > 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libc.so.6] > 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libgcc_s.so.1] > > I do not see any explicit dependency on librevenge-generators... And I do > not see libm.so.6 as a problem, as libstdc++.so.6 already needs it anyway. > > > > > - GPL (v3 or later) > > - ----------------- > > - librevenge-0.0.0/data/gdb/auto-load/librevenge-0.0.py > > - librevenge-0.0.0/data/gdb/auto-load/librevenge-stream-0.0.py > > -> I think you forget to add this license to list. Probably you should > > replace LGPLv2+ with GPLv3+ or something > > This is apparently checked on unpatched tarball. Patch1 changes these > licenses to MPLv2.0/LGPLv2+. (I adapted the pretty printers code from > another project of mine and forgot to change the licenses originally.) I think unpatched tarball, because %autosetup doesn't work with fedora-review. is this fedora-review or mock bug ? > > > > > - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > > -> there no links. could you provide it ? If no - sent to upstream. NOT > > BLOCKER. > > These patches come from upstream. ack. > > > > > - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > > -> I think you could patch it. there need '-p' for `install` command. NOT > > BLOCKER. > > I do not call install manually anywhere... calls to install becomes from Makefile.* you can see in logs something like this: install -c -m 0644 blahblah /usr/share/blahblah and more better if we will see '-p' there. -p, --preserve-timestamps apply access/modification times of SOURCE files to corresponding destination files > > > > > - Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gdb > > libstdc++ owns this on my system. > > > -> I think for -devel subpackage should be Requires: libstdc++ > > libstdc++ is already required through librevenge. yeah. seems fedora-review bug. > > > - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gdb/auto- > > load/usr(libstdc++), /usr/share/gdb/auto-load(libstdc++, gdb), > > /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64(libstdc++) > > -> do not own this dirs. it will be owned by libstdc++. own only files in > > this directories > > All right, removed. (In reply to David Tardon from comment #4) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2) > > > Source: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libwpd/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz > > use Source0 instead of Source. > > Why? 19 of my 30 packages (not all of them created by myself) use just > Source and nobody has ever complained to me. That's not critical. But good practice. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL. anywhere Source0. > > > > > > %autosetup -p1 > > use %setup -q and %patch0 -p1, %patch1 -p1 > > No. There is no chance this is ever going to be backported to EPEL-6. hm. Why ? AFAIK there present setup and patch macroses. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/zabbix.git/tree/zabbix.spec#n273 zabbix available for EL6 and (IIRC) EL5. Please change this macroses. > > > > > >make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > > you could use %make_install instead, but that's not should item. > > I am pretty sure that the use of %make_install is prohibited in Fedora. it's available for EL6 and probably for EL5. [root@monitoring ~]# rpm --eval %make_install make install DESTDIR=/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.x86_64 [root@monitoring ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.5 (Final)
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #8) > (In reply to David Tardon from comment #7) > > (In reply to David Tardon from comment #5) > > > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) > > > > - librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > > > > /usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 > > > > Or does this mean that librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 needs on > > libm.so.6, even though it does not use it? If so, then I can only repeat > > that libm.so.6 is already needed by libstdc++.so.6, so I do not see this as > > a problem. > > This mean, that you linked with libm.so, but librevenge doesn't using it.(In > reply to David Tardon from comment #5) Yeah. But I explained why this does not matter in reality. > > > > - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > > > -> I think you could patch it. there need '-p' for `install` command. NOT > > > BLOCKER. > > > > I do not call install manually anywhere... > calls to install becomes from Makefile.* you can see in logs something like > this: > install -c -m 0644 blahblah /usr/share/blahblah > and more better if we will see '-p' there. Yes, but these makefiles are generated by automake. And there might be a reason why -p is not used. > (In reply to David Tardon from comment #4) > > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2) > > > > %autosetup -p1 > > > use %setup -q and %patch0 -p1, %patch1 -p1 > > > > No. There is no chance this is ever going to be backported to EPEL-6. > hm. Why ? AFAIK there present setup and patch macroses. > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/zabbix.git/tree/zabbix.spec#n273 > zabbix available for EL6 and (IIRC) EL5. Please change this macroses. Because using %patchX is error-prone (it is far too easy to add a patch but forget to apply it), it needs more typing and, frankly, it is just useless now that rpmbuild in all active versions of Fedora supports %autosetup. > > > > > > > > >make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > > > you could use %make_install instead, but that's not should item. > > > > I am pretty sure that the use of %make_install is prohibited in Fedora. > it's available for EL6 and probably for EL5. > [root@monitoring ~]# rpm --eval %make_install > make install > DESTDIR=/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.x86_64 > [root@monitoring ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release > CentOS release 6.5 (Final) Ah, actually the prohibited macro is %makeinstall (without the '_'). Anyway, Packaging Guidelines say that %make_install, "make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install" and "make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install" are equivalent.
(In reply to David Tardon from comment #9) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #8) > > (In reply to David Tardon from comment #7) > > > (In reply to David Tardon from comment #5) > > > > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) > > > > > - librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > > > > > /usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 > > > > > > Or does this mean that librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 needs on > > > libm.so.6, even though it does not use it? If so, then I can only repeat > > > that libm.so.6 is already needed by libstdc++.so.6, so I do not see this as > > > a problem. > > > > This mean, that you linked with libm.so, but librevenge doesn't using it.(In > > reply to David Tardon from comment #5) > > Yeah. But I explained why this does not matter in reality. I would prefer to fix this, because rpmlint warning. This an easy to fix. > > > > > > > - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > > > > -> I think you could patch it. there need '-p' for `install` command. NOT > > > > BLOCKER. > > > > > > I do not call install manually anywhere... > > calls to install becomes from Makefile.* you can see in logs something like > > this: > > install -c -m 0644 blahblah /usr/share/blahblah > > and more better if we will see '-p' there. > > Yes, but these makefiles are generated by automake. And there might be a > reason why -p is not used. > > > (In reply to David Tardon from comment #4) > > > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2) > > > > > %autosetup -p1 > > > > use %setup -q and %patch0 -p1, %patch1 -p1 > > > > > > No. There is no chance this is ever going to be backported to EPEL-6. > > hm. Why ? AFAIK there present setup and patch macroses. > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/zabbix.git/tree/zabbix.spec#n273 > > zabbix available for EL6 and (IIRC) EL5. Please change this macroses. > > Because using %patchX is error-prone (it is far too easy to add a patch but > forget to apply it), it needs more typing and, frankly, it is just useless > now that rpmbuild in all active versions of Fedora supports %autosetup. Ack. > > > > > > > > > > > > >make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > > > > you could use %make_install instead, but that's not should item. > > > > > > I am pretty sure that the use of %make_install is prohibited in Fedora. > > it's available for EL6 and probably for EL5. > > [root@monitoring ~]# rpm --eval %make_install > > make install > > DESTDIR=/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.x86_64 > > [root@monitoring ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release > > CentOS release 6.5 (Final) > > Ah, actually the prohibited macro is %makeinstall (without the '_'). Anyway, > Packaging Guidelines say that %make_install, "make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > install" and "make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install" are equivalent. Yes. That's so. No problem. I've said this for information.) Ok. I'll recheck after 1.5h and approve. Thank you for work!
APPROVED. Good luck with this package. Do massive update ;)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: librevenge Short Description: A base library for writing document import filters Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/p/libwpd/wiki/librevenge/ Owners: dtardon caolanm Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).