https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #12 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- (In reply to jeremy.fergason from comment #11)
I have updated the SPEC file and SRPM:
Spec URL: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/swift-rpm/swift-lang.spec SRPM URL: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/swift-rpm/swift-lang-2.2-0.1. snapshot20151231.fc23.src.rpm
That was a big step in the right direction, but here's some more comments: - Release is usually just an integer (i.e. 1 instead of 0.1) and it's usually best to increment it with each change so that it's easier for reviewers to compare different versions - As Meng pointed out, the Source* tags should use macros so that only a single value has to be changed when a new release is made - Get rid of # in Source* tags and use original names in source .rpm - Are versions listed in BuildRequires "real" (i.e. listed in Swift documentation and/or the true minimum version required)? - All patches needs to have at least an issue opened upstream and documented in the .spec file what the expected resolution is ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_... ) - I don't believe the "cd .." is necessary at the end of %prep - Add version to changelog entries ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs )
The one thing that I don't know how to do is deal with the /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 issue. I just redefined the macro; is this the way to deal with that?
Is this actually building Swift or just unpacking a pre-built binary?
If it's just a pre-built binary, then this package cannot be packaged for Fedora ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-buil... ).
If it's actually building Swift, then you should open a ticket upstream and get the issue resolved in their build system so it can play nice with Fedora.