Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp-0.3.3-1.src.rpm Description: daap-sharp is a DAAP (Digial Audio Access Protocol) implementation. It is used by Apple's iTunes software to share music.
MUSTS: - rpmlint checks return (devel/i386): [build@zeus result]$ rpmlint daap-sharp-0.3.3-1.i386.rpm E: daap-sharp no-binary E: daap-sharp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: daap-sharp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/daap-sharp/daap-sharp.dll.config W: daap-sharp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/daap-sharp.pc [build@zeus result]$ rpmlint daap-sharp-0.3.3-1.src.rpm E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPL) OK, matches source, included text in %doc - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream 53feead0f3ef75cf5e34cbb4f1d37f30 daap-sharp-0.3.3.tar.gz 53feead0f3ef75cf5e34cbb4f1d37f30 daap-sharp-0.3.3.tar.gz.srpm - package compiles on devel (i386) BAD: package fails to compile in mock on FC-5/x86_64 (and not ExcludeArch'ed): RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/daap-sharp-0.3.3-1-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/daap-sharp Most likely due to this in %files: %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} Why not use %{_libdir}/%{name} instead? In fact, why not use %{_libdir} everywhere %{_prefix}/lib is used in the spec? - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file BAD: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package SHOULD: - why not include AUTHORS, ChangeLog, README, etc, in %doc? - why not include the samples in %doc?
(In reply to comment #1) > > BAD: package fails to compile in mock on FC-5/x86_64 (and not ExcludeArch'ed): > RPM build errors: > File not found: > /var/tmp/daap-sharp-0.3.3-1-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/daap-sharp > Most likely due to this in %files: > %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} > Why not use %{_libdir}/%{name} instead? In fact, why not use %{_libdir} > everywhere %{_prefix}/lib is used in the spec? > BAD: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package > The reasons for using %{_prefix}/lib and not having a -devel package are explained on the wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono
Chris, Could you attach the build log for the mock failure on FC-5/x86_64, so I can check to see why it failed?
Created attachment 128801 [details] fedora-5-x86_64-core buildlog Buildlog from mock for x86_64 / FC-5.
Comment on attachment 128801 [details] fedora-5-x86_64-core buildlog Wrong build log. This is for perl-Test-Cmd.
Created attachment 128802 [details] _correct_ x86_64 / FC-5 build.log (11:11:44) jima: cweyl: "due to scheduling difficulties, monday has been extended through wednesday."
Created attachment 128810 [details] development / x86_64 build.log As requested....
Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp-0.3.3-2.src.rpm * Tue May 9 2006 Brian Pepple <bdpepple> - 0.3.3-2 - Add patch to fix build on x86_64. This should hopefully fix the build for development. FC5 will still fail on x86_64, due to a problem with avahi-sharp, though that will be addressed with avahi-sharp-0.6.9-9.
Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.src.rpm * Tue May 16 2006 Brian Pepple <bdpepple> - 0.3.3-3 - Add devel package for *.pc file. - Add Req on mono-core. - Use cleaner URL.
Sorry for the delay. Good: - rpmlint checks return: daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.src.rpm E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm E: daap-sharp no-binary E: daap-sharp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: daap-sharp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/daap-sharp/daap-sharp.dll.configdaap-sharp-debuginfo-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm daap-sharp-devel-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm W: daap-sharp-devel no-documentation All errors and warnings expected for mono packages. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - devel requires base package n-v-r Not a must, but why not: - include AUTHORS, ChangeLog, README, etc, in %doc? - include the samples in %doc? APPROVED.
Built for FC-5 & devel. Thanks for the review.