Spec URL: http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/libanculus-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/libanculus-sharp-0.3.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: libanculus-sharp serves and helps you to easily and quickly write new applications. It contains all the building blocks that you need to develop a good C# application. rpmlint says : [builder@mathieu SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libanculus-sharp-0.3.1-1.fc9 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [builder@mathieu SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/libanculus-sharp-* libanculus-sharp.i386: E: no-binary libanculus-sharp.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libanculus-sharp-devel.i386: W: no-documentation libanculus-sharp-doc.i386: W: no-documentation libanculus-sharp-doc.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. Also, I think only-non-binary-in-usr-lib and no-binary can be ignored for mono package Note that mock builds are good for fedora-9-i386, fedora-9-x86_64 and fedora-rawhide-x86_64 It's not my first review request, but I need a sponsor. (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454207)
(I've not checked yet if there are any mono guidelines in particular) 1) $ rpmlint libanculus-sharp.spec libanculus-sharp.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab: line 3) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. 2) $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/libanculus-sharp-0.3.1-1.fc12.src.rpm libanculus-sharp.src: W: strange-permission libanculus-sharp.spec 0777 libanculus-sharp.src: W: strange-permission libanculus-sharp-0.3.1.tar.bz2 0777 3) $ rpmlint *x86_64.rpm libanculus-sharp.x86_64: E: no-binary libanculus-sharp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libanculus-sharp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libanculus-sharp-doc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libanculus-sharp-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. As you say I think these are okay, I need to check a bit myself. 4) Packaage contains: /usr/lib64/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.Extended.dll /usr/lib64/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.dll /usr/lib64/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Gui.dll but that directory is not owned or in a package that is pulled in. 5) Similar story for /usr/lib64/mono/libanculus-sharp 6) Similar also for /usr/lib64/mono/gac/Anculus.Core.Extended/0.3.1.0__f53db44f7305a799 Please check all the others. 7) Line 31 of the .spec file. The spacing is different to the other lines. 8) I would guess that with %{__chmod} 755 autogen.sh sh autogen.sh --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir} if you call it with sh you don't need to chmod it first. 9) In the -doc package the files are not marked as %doc which is possibly okay. They are needed at runntime? 10) The -doc package looks to be noarch so at least this sub package could me marked as noarch. 11) Why are the docs in /usr/lib64/monodoc rather than /usr/share or something? Though this starts to cross into why monodoc itself is in there. Steve p.s The monodoc package needs a bug. $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/monodoc/monodoc.xml /usr/lib64/monodoc/ monodoc-2.4.3.1-1.fc12.x86_64 file /usr/lib64/monodoc is not owned by any package
ping
I'm not interested in packaging this library. If anyone is interested in this it can resume work.
Removing myself from the review. I suggest this is closed shortly. Steve
(In reply to comment #3) > I'm not interested in packaging this library. > > If anyone is interested in this it can resume work. Based on the above comment from the person who initially asked for the review, I am closing this review request. If anyone is willing to add this package to Fedora, please create a new review request.