Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/libopts.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/libopts-27.1-1.src.rpm Description: libopts is part of the autogen project builder required as part of anjuta 2
NEEDSWORK: This spec is rather immature and needs quite some work - For the moment, I presume you are new to rpm packaging ;) For the moment, let me only mention a few major issues: 1. Replace the mkdir/install stuff with make DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install 2. Use %{_infodir} instead of %{_datadir}/info in %files 3. Missing %{_includedir}/autoopts in %files 4. Split the package into *-devel and nondevel. 5. Package ships infos but no calls to install-info 6. Wrong license ... [libopts is LGPL or BSD cf. http://autogen.sourceforge.net/doc/autogen_185.html#SEC185 ... and many further details ... I'll try to provide a patch addressing the most severe issues ...
Created attachment 125166 [details] Proposed spec changes
Not that new to packaging - just somewhat tired when I did the spec file! I originally had the make DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install in the spec file, but the compilation continually failed. I swapped it over and all was well. This could be down to my buildsys at home (x86_64 box). Does %{_infodir} automagically point to /usr/share/info? I've not come across that one and it will affect the autogen package which should be ready tonight (it also has the same make DESTDIR problem as libopts :-( ) Thanks for the patch - I'll review and apply it tonight.
(In reply to comment #3) > Not that new to packaging - just somewhat tired when I did the spec file! :) > I originally had the make DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install in the spec file, > but the compilation continually failed. I swapped it over and all was well. This > could be down to my buildsys at home (x86_64 box). Pretty unlikely. This package is automake based and applies a pretty clean and modern build infrastructure. > Does %{_infodir} automagically point to /usr/share/info? Yes. It's analogous to %{_mandir} and implicitly being used inside of %configure.
Ping?
(In reply to comment #3) > Thanks for the patch - I'll review and apply it tonight. Paul, have you lost interest in this package? Shouldn't you be responding by Monday morning, I'll presume so and will close this review request as WONTFIX.
Sorry - I edit an internationally read programmers magazine which is currently taking quite a chunk of my time (it does around this time every other month). I will get onto it hopefully today.
Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/libopts.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/libopts-27.1-2.src.rpm Changelog Changes made to spec file as proposed
Ping!
* Package still doesn't build in mock: ... RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/info/dir ... I recommend to add rm -f ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_infodir}/dir to the end of %install * A typo %description devel -Development files for lipopts +Development files for libopts Provided you apply these two changes, I am approving this package. APPROVED
Paul, please add this package and yourself to owners.list Also, why did you close it "CLOSED RAWHIDE"? Unless a package is shipped through upstread RH (rawhide), which rarely applies to FE packages, I'd rather prefer to see FE packages closed NEXTREASE.
Unless something has gone hideously wrong, it should already be in the owners.list file. I'll need to check when I get to my machine at my desk. As for CLOSED RAWHIDE and NEXTRELEASE, I guess it's because as these are only currently packaged for fc6, then RAWHIDE is more appropriate - NEXTRELEASE always made me think it was for the current version. Not a biggy, I'll use NEXTRELEASE in future.
(In reply to comment #12) > Unless something has gone hideously wrong, it should already be in the > owners.list file. I'll need to check when I get to my machine at my desk. It's not yet in owners.list: # cvs up cvs update: Updating . # grep libopt owners.list [Nothing] > As for CLOSED RAWHIDE and NEXTRELEASE, I guess it's because as these are only > currently packaged for fc6, then RAWHIDE is more appropriate - NEXTRELEASE > always made me think it was for the current version. Not a biggy, I'll use > NEXTRELEASE in future. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Under Contributor ... you will find: ... 9. Once the package is built, close the bugzilla review ticket as NEXTRELEASE. ...
Paul, Will you add this package to owners.list? Shouldn't you do so by Monday 2006-03-27 00:00 GMT I will withdraw my approval to this package and request removing this package.
Done.
Paul: I still don't see the package in owners.list... did you forget to check it back in? Please re-add it...