Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790628
--- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 2012-02-19 04:55:21 EST
---
(In reply to comment #12)
Thanks!
1. The source download pointed to by the web page is a sf download.
You would
usually use a full URL for the Source0. Fedora uses a specific fixed URL to
access sf sources, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net The source is
actually a combo of ASL and boost + a link, packed together in
the way ASL needs to be built. I've put a short-form of this info in the
comment. While this could be done it the %prep stage, I have concluded that it
becomes just a to messy (yes, I have tried :) )
Unless you are packaging direct from version control, and if so,
should state
why, and the Release: would need work to fit with one of Fedora's pre/post
release naming schemes, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_pa...
What's wrong with "Release: 3%{?dist}" ?
2. Where possible, provide comment info on Source1,2. eg: exact URL
retrieved
from (in that case, why not use the url directly ?), or where it came from ?
Not
much to say, I wrote it :)
3. In your changelog, please use a blank line to separate each dated
entry.
Fixed
4. Don't use large amount of white space between changelog date,
email, and
version parts.
Fixed
5. Changelog version: don't include {?dist} ie: .fc15, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs "must item"
Fixed
6. Don't have you editor write config items to the spec file.
(expandtab etc).
Fixed
Is
this applicable?! I'm not packaging a static library, I'm building a static
library which is converted to a dynamic in the following steps. Or am I missing
something?
Which of the issues in this link do you think are not solved in this packaging.
I don't really follow you...
Might be worth looking to see if another rpm based distro solved this
already,
eg Mandriva, Suse etc., or hints from debian based distro.
Once again, solved
what?!
8. tools/bjam: is this tool already in fedora ? If so, then
BuildRequire it
instead.
Yes, it's there, but not compatible, I have actually tried. Since this
is not
installed, just used in the build process I don't see the problem here either.
[cut]
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.