Spec Name or Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl-1.9-1.1.src.rpm Description: spicctrl queries and sets a variety of parameters on Sony Vaio laptop computers, including AC Power status, battery status, screen brightness, and bluetooth device power status.
Seeking advice: Apparently, Sony Vaio laptops are not available in every architecture (no ppc for example). Should I limit the architectures this package would build for?
That would make sense to me. Vaio only comes in i386, right? :-)
(In reply to comment #2) > That would make sense to me. Vaio only comes in i386, right? :-) I believe so. Or should I make it i686?
Second try, adding an ExclusiveArch tag for i386 and i686: Spec Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl.spec SRPM Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl-1.9-1.2.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Dec 26 2005 Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh> 1.9-1.2 - Add ExclusiveArch
(In reply to comment #4) > Second try, adding an ExclusiveArch tag for i386 and i686: This IMHO is wrong -- just use 'ExclusiveArch: i386'. Otherwise the buildsys probably will build the package for i386 and i686 without a reason.
(In reply to comment #5) > This IMHO is wrong -- just use 'ExclusiveArch: i386'. Otherwise the buildsys > probably will build the package for i386 and i686 without a reason. Grepping some FC4 spec files, it seems that some use a "%{ix86}" macro (acpid, ant, apmd, ccs, cman, compat-gcc-296, cpufreq-utils, ...), some use "i386" only (awesfx, compat-slang, cpuspeed, crash, devhelp, diskdumputils, ...) eclipse apparently has switched from "i386" to "%{ix86}" some time in May 2005: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/eclipse/FC-4/eclipse.spec?r1=1.126&r2=1.127 So apparently "i386 i686" is bad. I guess I should switch to "%{ix86}" because that is also what configure-thinkpad (from extras) uses. Third try, Spec Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl.spec SRPM Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl-1.9-1.3.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Dec 26 2005 Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh> 1.9-1.3 - Change ExclusiveArch to %%{ix86}
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > This IMHO is wrong -- just use 'ExclusiveArch: i386'. Otherwise the buildsys > > probably will build the package for i386 and i686 without a reason. > Grepping some FC4 spec files, it seems that some use a "%{ix86}" macro (acpid, > ant, apmd, ccs, cman, compat-gcc-296, cpufreq-utils, ...), some use "i386" only > (awesfx, compat-slang, cpuspeed, crash, devhelp, diskdumputils, ...) Those are build with a different buildsys -- so only partly of interest here. > So apparently "i386 i686" is bad. I guess I should switch to "%{ix86}" because > that is also what configure-thinkpad (from extras) uses. configure-thinkpad was never build in plague. Technically you are correct with %{ix86} -- but as I said, plague will rebuild this for i386, i586, i686 (and maybe even athlon) IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong). There is no reason for that. So is still vote for: 'ExclusiveArch: i386'
(In reply to comment #7) > configure-thinkpad was never build in plague. > > Technically you are correct with %{ix86} -- but as I said, plague will rebuild > this for i386, i586, i686 (and maybe even athlon) IIRC (correct me if I'm > wrong). There is no reason for that. So is still vote for: 'ExclusiveArch: i386' I guess you're wrong. Grepping Extras packages from 'development', the following use "%{ix86}", but I can see no i586 or i686 RPM in the built RPMs: athcool.spec:ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} atitvout.spec:ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} camstream.spec:ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 Glide3.spec:ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} alpha ia64 x86_64 jogl.spec:ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} ppc ... Checking dates, athcool, for example, appears to be last rebuilt on 2005-12-03, when the plague system was in place: 1538: athcool (athcool-0_3_11-3_fc5) gajownik needsign/success hammer2.fedora.redhat.com(i386): 3150b8e1da473c5338699cf8f9cb31cd1d85262d done/done
(In reply to comment #8) > I guess you're wrong. According to your data: yes. But I tried with your latest package in a local plague-server and it build the package for i386 and i686... /me is even more confused now. But it's seems not that important...
Apparently FE's build system takes care of %{ix86} properly, as is also evident from newer builds. So the latest spec and SRPM are fine. Anybody who cares to review?
Updated version, now using the %{?dist} tag: Spec Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl.spec SRPM Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl-1.9-1.4.src.rpm
Release versions are always integers, not "1.4". You have might done this for the review, but please don't do it for releases. So please create a "2" release. Other then that, no issues. rpmlint gives one warning: W: spicctrl dangerous-command-in-%post rm Which i guess is fine, assuming that the device would not be in use. I'm 500km from my vaio right now, but I will be able to check the functionality next week. FE-APPROVED