https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086790



--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt <[email protected]> ---
$ rpmdiff gnudos-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm.OLD1 gnudos-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
Binary files old/gnudos-1.0.tar.gz and new/gnudos-1.0.tar.gz differ

Huh? You've recreated the tarball with modified contents and without any
comment.

That's a rather unpolite thing to do during package review. Take your time and
present packages you've self-reviewed. The review queue is not a place where to
expect reviewers to do _all_ the work. Especially if you've been sponsored just
recently, it can be a good idea to do your stuff painstakingly and -- in case
of doubt -- ask your sponsor for a brief look at a spec file.


> +%package devel
> +Summary: Header files for the GnuDOS library
> +Group: System Environment/Libraries

The Group tag for library -devel packages is "Development/Libraries". It can be
helpful to examine _existing_ packages as a reference.


> +Provides: %{name}-devel-%{version}

This makes no sense. There are automatic Provides for packages and subpackages.
Take your time and query the built binary packages with "rpm".


> +%description devel
> +This package contains header files necessary to develop programs using the
> GnuDOS corelib library of functions

Similar to the %summary, the contents are _not_ only headers. You've misplaced
the *.so symlink. It belongs in the -devel package.


> > %{_includedir}/console/*
>
> Fixed

Not. The directory is still not included in the package:

> +%files devel
> +%{_includedir}/console/*


And in the following line you've created a new "unowned" directory:

> +%{_docdir}/gnudos/*

Please return to the previous comment in bugzilla and revisit the link to the
File/Dir Ownership packaging guidelines.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

Reply via email to