[Bug 188666] Review Request: gucharmap
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gucharmap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188666
------- Additional Comments From katzj(a)redhat.com 2006-04-13 20:24 EST -------
Personally, I think it's overkill and that we probably will want to revisit that
policy as we start following the same thing everywhere.
This will become especially true when we want to use the existence of a -devel
subpackage to key that a package should be included as a multilib package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
18 years
[Bug 188677] Review Request: gnome-utils
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188677
------- Additional Comments From mclasen(a)redhat.com 2006-04-13 20:24 EST -------
E: gnome-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
I didn't get this error.
E: gnome-utils shell-syntax-error-in-%post
I got this one, but I was not able to figure out what it complains about
Regarding the warnings about conffiles and devel files, it is not clear
to me that the /etc files listed here should be conffiles, and if we
split off -libs and -devel packages on principle...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
18 years
[Bug 188666] Review Request: gucharmap
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gucharmap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188666
------- Additional Comments From mclasen(a)redhat.com 2006-04-13 20:16 EST -------
Do we really want to split this into three packages ?
- the app
- the library
- the -devel
It was my understanding that we sometimes don't bother
to do that for small packages.
But if it is the policy to always do these splits, then
I'm happy to do it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
18 years
[Bug 188677] Review Request: gnome-utils
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188677
------- Additional Comments From jkeating(a)redhat.com 2006-04-13 17:51 EST -------
rpmlint fails. Haven't looked much past this:
W: gnome-utils summary-ended-with-dot GNOME utility programs.
W: gnome-utils incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.14.0-5 2.14.0-2
E: gnome-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-dictionary
['/usr/lib64']
E: gnome-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/libexec/gnome-dictionary-applet ['/usr/lib64']
W: gnome-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-search-tool.schemas
W: gnome-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/logview.schemas
W: gnome-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/gnome-system-log
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/gdict-1.0/gdict/gdict-utils.h
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/gdict-1.0.pc
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/gdict-1.0/gdict/gdict-source.h
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/gdict-1.0/gdict/gdict-entry.h
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/gdict-1.0/gdict/gdict-version.h
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/gdict-1.0/gdict/gdict-enum-types.h
W: gnome-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-dictionary.schemas
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/gdict-1.0/gdict/gdict.h
W: gnome-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/gnome-system-log
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/gdict-1.0/gdict/gdict-context.h
W: gnome-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-screenshot.schemas
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/gdict-1.0/gdict/gdict-source-loader.h
W: gnome-utils no-dependency-on usermode
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/gdict-1.0/gdict/gdict-client-context.h
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/gdict-1.0/gdict/gdict-defbox.h
W: gnome-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libgdict-1.0.so
W: gnome-utils non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec
E: gnome-utils shell-syntax-error-in-%post
32bit's only E's are the shell-syntax-error.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
18 years
[Bug 188666] Review Request: gucharmap
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gucharmap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188666
------- Additional Comments From jkeating(a)redhat.com 2006-04-13 15:47 EST -------
Good:
- Builds w/ mock
Bad:
- no ldconfig in %posts
- unversioned library must go in -devel package
- Header files not in -devel package (not completely necessary)
- no %doc for README, NEWS, etc...
- .desktop file not installed properly via desktop-file-install
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
18 years