Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 426349
Review Request: mono-addins
Last modified: 2008-02-23 11:45:44 EST
Spec URL: http://pfj.fedorapeople.org/mono-addins.spec SRPM URL: http://pfj.fedorapeople.org/mono-addins-1.2.6-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: mono-addins is required for monodevelop and is currently expected to take over infrastructure aspects of mono (such as for monodoc etc)
wrong link to src package, should be http://pfj.fedorapeople.org/mono-addins-0.3-1.fc9.src.rpm in spec URL: http://www.mono-project.com/Mono.Addins Source0: http://www.go-mono.com/sources/mono-addins/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 rpmlint: mono-addins.i386: W: no-documentation mono-addins.i386: W: invalid-license GPL mono-addins.i386: E: no-binary mono-addins.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There is no information about license of Mono.Addins, should ask mainstream. rpmlint mono-addins-devel-0.3-1.fc8.i386.rpm mono-addins-devel.i386: W: no-documentation mono-addins-devel.i386: W: summary-not-capitalized development files for mono-addins mono-addins-devel.i386: W: non-standard-group Development/Applications mono-addins-devel.i386: W: invalid-license GPL
Timon are you doing the review? If not I would be happy to take this, if you are please assign the package to yourself. Paul are you working on packaging Mono.Zeroconf, I know this will be in Mono 1.2.7 but till then it is needed to build Banshee SVN (and thus likely the next stable Banshee - you see my obvious interest in tricking you into packaging it here, I'll be happy to review it)
Do you have a URL for Mono.Zeroconf?
http://mono-project.com/Mono.Zeroconf
I'm too young for doing a review. :) sorry. and I don't know how to do a review :(
funny since you were off to a good start, regardless I'll claim this for great justice. Paul in the future just cc me to review requests, I'd love to see Mono do better in Fedora so I'm all for streamlining the progress of getting your packages reviewed.
#6 thanks! I've uploaded a newer version tonight which addresses much of #1's concerns Timon : thanks for the initial review. Mono packages can be an utter swine to get right as they are somewhat insane! The errors thrown up aren't actually errors in this case, which tends to throw some. As David said, keep it up!
David - you up for reviewing this?
I apologize, lots of shit going on so I kinda dropped the ball on this.. BAD: mono-addins.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 7) mono-addins-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized development files for mono-addins mono-addins-devel.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Applications mono-addins-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package Fails to build in mock (fedora-8-i386) due to missing dependency fulfilling autoreconf GOOD: Owns all it's files SPEC is in clean US English MERGH?: Are the --prefix/libdir configure arguments really needed? It's good form to name patches after it's function instead of just the package name (so in this case mono-addins-libdir.patch would be good I suppose).
Spec URL: http://pfj.fedorapeople.org/mono-addins.spec SRPM URL: http://pfj.fedorapeople.org/mono-addins-1.2.6-3.fc9.src.rpm Fixed all but MERGH?: I've found that with some mono packages, exporting the --prefix/libdir stuff solves more problems than fixing the makefiles, so I do it now just as a belt and braces sort of thing.
The thing is.. we already export those as part of the rpm build system, that shouldn't be needed. If it makes a difference then I think it's a bug with our build magic not your spec and should be handled as such. BAD: mono-addins.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 3) However it now builds in mock and I have no further complains, fix that tabs spaces thing before checking it though. APPROVED
I'll fix the W before import
oh and excludearch ppc64 on account of #241850 - forgot that one before because I don't have ppc hardware but if you don't do that koji will give you the seal of epic fail.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mono-addins Short Description: mono-addins is required for monodevelop and is currently expected to take over infrastructure aspects of mono Owners: pfj Branches: f8, f7 InitialCC: pfj Cvsextras Commits: yes
Is that short description right? Typically you would want to use the Summary from the package spec, in this case "Addins for mono"?
Yes. I'll amend the one in the spec file before uploading.
Sorry, misread. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mono-addins Short Description: Addins for mono Owners: pfj Branches: f8, f7 InitialCC: pfj Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done. Sorry for the delay/hassle.
Now in the repos, CLOSING