Spec URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/poppler-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/poppler-sharp-0.0.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Required for package pdfmod
I just had a quick look at this package: - according to http://github.com/jacintos/poppler-sharp the license should GPLv2+ - the package will not work correctly on x86_64 since the "libdir" is hard-coded to %{exec_prefix}/lib in the *.pc file (you can do something similar to http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=clutter-sharp.git;a=commit;h=4fd05adbdaee4eb2d2963982d242a035935babbb )
I just update .spec and .srpm files Spec URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/poppler-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/poppler-sharp-0.0.1-2.fc13.src.rpm and create a bug report in upstream for fix "libdir" in x86_64 problem http://github.com/jacintos/poppler-sharp/issues#issue/1 Christian thanks for your comments
I just review .spec and .srpm files using fc14 Spec URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/poppler-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/poppler-sharp-0.0.1-2.fc14.src.rpm
Translate summary and description to spanish Spec URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/poppler-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/poppler-sharp-0.0.1-3.fc14.src.rpm
I just update the spec and src.rpm for 0.0.2 upstream version Please somebody review Spec URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/poppler-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/poppler-sharp-0.0.2-1.fc14.src.rpm
Fix poppler-glib missing Spec URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/poppler-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/poppler-sharp-0.0.2-2.fc14.src.rpm
* rpmlint: $ rpmlint -iv /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-i386/result/poppler-sharp-0.0.2-2.fc15.src.rpm poppler-sharp.src: I: checking poppler-sharp.src: I: checking-url http://www.github.com/jacintos/poppler-sharp (timeout 10 seconds) poppler-sharp.src: I: checking-url http://github.com/downloads/jacintos/poppler-sharp/poppler-sharp-0.0.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. fine $ rpmlint -iv /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-i386/result/poppler-sharp-0.0.2-2.fc15.i686.rpm poppler-sharp.i686: I: checking poppler-sharp.i686: I: checking-url http://www.github.com/jacintos/poppler-sharp (timeout 10 seconds) poppler-sharp.i686: E: no-binary The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. poppler-sharp.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. here rpmlint not adheres to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono, so it's fine as it is. [olea@patxuko rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -iv /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-i386/result/poppler-sharp-devel-0.0.2-2.fc15.i686.rpm poppler-sharp-devel.i686: I: checking poppler-sharp-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://www.github.com/jacintos/poppler-sharp (timeout 10 seconds) poppler-sharp-devel.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. if there is non trivial information to developers would be nice to add here; if not, it is fine AFAIK * I would suggest to modify translation from %description -l es Genera administración de enlaces a Poppler usando herramientas GAPI to Genera los vínculos administrados usando las herramientas GAPI * I understood, reading the linked issue 4 this modification is incompatible now: #libpoppler-glib fix https://github.com/jacintos/poppler-sharp/issues/4 sed -i 's/libpoppler-glib\.so\.6/libpoppler-glib\.so/g' sources/poppler-sharp.dll.config Correct me if I'm wrong. * gacutil is now required to install DLL in Fedora (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono#gacutil_in_a_spec_file) Please apply the suggested changes and use mock for next rebuilds for better control of potential collateral effects.
As I don't see any advance here I'm submiting the package as me. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 834551 ***