Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 177107
Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:20 EST
Spec Name or Url: http://www.sp5pbe.waw.pl/~sp5smk/fedora-extras/specs/libgeda.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://www.sp5pbe.waw.pl/~sp5smk/fedora-extras/srpms/libgeda-20050820.fc4.src.rpm
Description: This is a library used by gEDA project (http://wwww.geda.seul.org), for electrical circuit design. The library provides utility functions for other software of gEDA.
This is my first group of package, so I am seeking a sponsor
There is new release of libgeda available.
Some remarks on your spec file (without having built it):
1. Missing requirements:
2. IIRC, due to an issue in rpm, the %post, %preun etc. sections must be
separated by blank lines, otherwise rpm will concatenate then into one section.
3. The same remarks as on you libgdeda specs also apply here (pkgconfig,
includedir, static libs).
1. Finished library has autogenerated dependence on ldconfig. Does it need
extra dependency for install/uninstal?
Dependency on install-info is not autogenerated so it may be good to include it
explicitely. I will look into other packages having info files.
2. Some half of existing packages have those sections without empty line
between them. I have not seen any problem so far.
(In reply to comment #3)
> 1. Finished library has autogenerated dependence on ldconfig. Does it need
> extra dependency for install/uninstal?
Yes. You are using scriptlets consisting of multiple lines.
For these, explicit Requires(...) on all tools being used inside are necessary.
> 2. Some half of existing packages have those sections without empty line
> between them. I have not seen any problem so far.
Check the output of "rpm -q --scripts" on your package.
There have been cases where rpm "lumped together" such scripts into one script.
This had caused sporatic installation/deinstallation errors.
I have applied some corrections to gEDA specfiles in response to the above
Specfiles are at:
Source RPM is at:
Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 204168 ***