Spec URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttv.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttv-0.12.38-1.src.rpm
LTTV is a modular trace viewer. It can perform analysis on traces of a Linux
kernel instrumented with LTTng and UST.
here are a few quick notes on your spec:
- use %global rather than %define, also see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
- in order to increase legibility, please indent (line up) the text of the
header fields (Summary, Name, Version, etc.)
- also list all BuildRequires separately
- You can drop the BuildRoot field. It's still required for EPEL < 6, though.
If you want to build the package for the old EPEL distros, you have to add
a %clean section and rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install.
- Replace LGPL v2.1 with LGPLv2, and GPL v2 with GPLv2. See here for a list
of valid license abbreviations: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
- devel packages must require the corresponding base/lib package with a fully
- add a non-empty %description to the devel package
- The %description lines must not exceed 80 chars per line. Just split them
- Drop RPM_OPT_FLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fstack-protector-all" from the make
statement as it has no effect.
- as the base package seems to provide a GUI application, you must provide
a .desktop file and install it properly:
- replace %defattr(-,root,root) with %defattr(-,root,root,-) or remove it
completely. It's still required if you plan to maintain the package for
EPEL 4 as well.
- add AUTHORS, ChangeLog, COPYING, and README to the base package (with %doc).
Thanks for the feedback. I'm preparing an updated package based on your comments
Just one question.
> - add a non-empty %description to the devel package
Do you mean to add a more detailed description to devel packages? Because all the package seem to have a description.
(In reply to comment #3)
> > - add a non-empty %description to the devel package
> Do you mean to add a more detailed description to devel packages? Because all
> the package seem to have a description.
Yes, sorry. I was probably too tired and was fooled by my brain when I had a look at your package. The description texts are fine. Just ignore that comment. ;)
New SRPMS and SPEC available following Martin comments
I am triaging old review tickets. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale.
Package fails to build for me. Here is a scratch build in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5318819
A build in f18 fails for me in the same manner.
This old version is not supported anymore upstream. A completely reworked version is being worked on.
Is it best to close this one and recreate a new one when a new version is available upstream (probably in a few months) ?
No point in having a ticket open when there's nothing to review, so I'll go ahead and close this.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1024127 ***