https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578
--- Comment #3 from Denis Arnaud <denis.arnaud_fedora(a)m4x.org> ---
Spec URL:
http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2.spec
SRPM URL:
http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2-0.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
[For later reference, I just add the corresponding URLs of the packaging
guidelines]
(In reply to comment #1)
You are right. I found a work around, redefining the CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS
environment variables. It may not be the cleanest way to do it, but I avoided
to have to patch the Makefile in the source tar-ball. If you have a better
idea, do not hesitate.
Please remove the defattrs, as they are the default.
Reference:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
You are right. Done
If you don't go for EPEL 5, remove the clean section, the rm in
the install
section and the buildroot definition.
I intend to package re2 for EPEL (5 and 6) as well.
You don't need the LICENSE file in the devel package. Don't
know whether the
README is useful there.
Reference:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Li...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplicate_Files
You are right. As a consequence, there is no %doc files in the -devel
sub-package, and rpmlint is not happy with that (it issues a warning). But I
believe that we can live with that :)
The description is very long and a bit like documentation in some
sections.
You are right. I reduced it while keeping the essential I believe.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.