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: libEMF - A library for generating Enhanced Metafiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216299
------- Additional Comments From rpm(a)greysector.net 2006-11-19 11:34 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
Well, first review of libEMF
1. From
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
* Licensing
- Include license document(s).
Done.
* Use rpmlint
I already did...
------------------------------------------------------
E: libEMF-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/libEMF-1.0.3/libemf/libemf.h
W: libEMF-devel summary-not-capitalized libEMF header files
------------------------------------------------------
- The formar issue is permission problem. Change the permission to
0644.
How? This is an automatically generated -debuginfo package.
- The latter issue can be ignored, in my opinion.
OK.
* Timestamps
- -devel package includes many header files and keeping timestamps
on these files is preferred as it makes clear
- when those files are written
- whether those files are modified by vendor
So please keep timestamps on those files.
Under my check, this can be done by using:
-------------------------------------------------------
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
export CPPROG="cp -p"
%{__make} install \
DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-------------------------------------------------------
Done. Although I'm surprised you've asked for this. This is the first
time I've ever seen this trick.
2. From
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
(= Okay)
3. Other things I have noticed:
* %check
Well, this package has tests/ directory and some tests are
included, so I think including %check script in the spec is
a good idea.
Added.
http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/libEMF.spec
http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/libEMF-1.0.3-2.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.