https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763285
Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lkundrak@v3.sk) |
--- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk --- (In reply to Matthew Krupcale from comment #1)
For the most part, this is close to ready, except for a few {Build,}Requires and Obsoletes issues and license packaging details.
Since this is splitting off from network-manager-applet, I looked at that spec file, and it seems to indicate that libnma{,-devel} should obsolete libnm-gtk{,-devel}.
No, libnma doesn't obsolete libnma-gtk. It is gone without a replacement -- the Obsoletes should go to fedora-obsolete-packages. I'll do that once the network-manager-applet package is updated and libnm-gtk is actually dropped.
Issues:
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
Fixed.
- %bcond_without should be used for defining with by default You may have this backwards for libnma_gtk4 See: https://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html
Good catch, thanks. Fixed.
- -devel and -gtk4-devel should require arch-dependent library packages: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} and Requires: %{name}-gtk4%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} respectively See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ #_requiring_base_package
Yes. Fixed.
- -gtk4 and -gtk4-devel subpackages should only be defined when %if %{with libnma_gtk4}
No, it's the presence of %files section or lack thereof that decides whether a binary package is built. That is so by design.
- Should Obsoletes: libnm-gtk{,-devel}
See above.
- %ldconfig_scriptlets is unnecessary on F28+ See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
Dropped it.
- License should be "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" due to contents in shared/ Should install COPYING.LGPLv2.1. This should be documented in the spec file as well. See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios
Yes. This needs to get fixed upstream first: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/merge_requests/5
- License not installed with -gtk4
Fixed.
- Consider moving %{_datadir}/gtk-doc files to noarch -devel-doc subpackage See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
Yeah, it could be done, but it seems rather unnecessary to me at this point.
Updated package:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/libnma.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/libnma-1.8.26-2.fc31.src.rpm
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org