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=575485
--- Comment #2 from Alex Orlandi <nyrk71(a)gmail.com> 2010-03-23 04:29:26 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Hey Alex. I'd be happy to review this for you.
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
[...cut...]
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin
Issues:
1. The .so files are not quite right here.
the .so should be in the devel subpackage.
The versioning is odd also, as they have:
libhpdf-2.1.0.so instead of libhpdf.so.2.1.0 ?
I guess it might be ok to have *.so in the devel package and *-2.1.0.so in the
main pkg?
- you are right: the .so versioning is odd; anyway I put .so in devel and
-2.1.0 in the main one
Do any of the demo programs work if you do this?
- yes, they do (after the modification mentioned above)
2. rpmlint says:
libharu.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/libharu-2.1.0/README
[...cut...]
libharu-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/libharu-devel-2.1.0/CHANGES
This can be ignored, but you should probibly not include those both in both
files.
The base file should be fine, as thats required by the devel package.
- removed CHANGES and README from devel pkg
libharu-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
This seems like it might be fallout from the weird library naming. ;(
- resolved enabling --enable-debug in configure
3. Please don't include the INSTALL file. There is no need to
tell people how
to build the file if they are installing the package.
- INSTALL file removed
4. Is it worth including the demos in the devel package as doc files?
- yes, it is :-) Included underd doc/ in devel pkg
--
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.