http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #11 from Neal Becker <ndbeck...@gmail.com> 2008-12-17 13:25:29 --- (In reply to comment #10) > This package surely needs some work. To start with: > > * mock build fails on my x86_64. This is because you are trying to build and > include 32 bit libraries in a 64 bit package, which is not allowed. If one > needs 32 bit libraries (s)he can install blcr-libs.i386 in addition to > blcr_libs.x86_64 . So you should remove the "libdir32" bits from the SPEC > file. > > * Leave a comment in the SPEC file for why you are using ExclusiveArch. > > * Try to avoid mixed ${ } %{_ } notation > > * BR: "perl" and "sed" are not required since they are in the minimum build > environment. > > * Please remove the static library bits from the SPEC file. > > * rpmlint complains: > blcr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > blcr-testsuite.x86_64: W: no-documentation > blcr-testsuite.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/libexec/blcr-testsuite/shellinit > For the first two, at least put the license file(s) in those packages. > The last one is actually about an empty files. Well it is not empty but when > you open it, it says "#empty". Do you think we should include that file? > > * Patches should be explained and be submitted to upstream if they are not > strictly Fedora specific. > > * The file tests/CountingApp.class is binary and should be removed during > %prep > > * The file README.devel is not and should be packaged. > > * Buildroot should be one of these: > %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root > > * Why do you have: > # Ensure we don't build for a i386 > %ifarch i386 > set +x > echo > "==========================================================================" > echo "ERROR: Cannot build BLCR for a generic i386." >&2 > echo "ERROR: Add \"--target `uname -p`\" (or similar) to the rpmbuild > command line." >&2 > echo > "==========================================================================" > exit 1 > %endif > in the SPEC file? Just remove i386 from ExclusiveArch and you should be fine. > > * Please use > %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig > Afaik, they'll work more efficient. > > * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) > > * Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros > section > of Fedora Packaging Guidelines . Avoid inconsistencies such as: > %clean > rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} > > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > * Disttag is missing. > > * The Fedora-specific compilation flag -fstack-protector is not passed to the > compiler. For a list of flags that should be passed to the compiler, please do > a > rpm --eval %optflags > > * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported, > this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment. > > * Shall we package the examples, tests directories? > Thank you. I am working with upstream on these. The 32bit is the most challenge. I think what we want is that we wind up with seperate 32bit and 64bit libs packages, blcr-libs.x86_64 and blcr-libs.i386. Consistent with other multi-arch packages, we want 32bit libs available on 64bit arch, but not installed by default. What is the standard way to setup srpm to produce this result? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.