https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237
--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas <[email protected]> 2012-03-23 10:34:52 CET --- (In reply to comment #2) > > > Homer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: Homer-Source.tar.bz2 > > Since this is released code, it could retrieved using the sourceforge URL > > See > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net > Homer use not conventional url, I explain that in comment into the spec file. Not true, it's accessible using sourceforge download URL:s, nothing strange with them (although they don't exactly match the recipe in the link). > > Homer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources > > You must fix this. The cause is probably that the source is stripped by the > > standard make. Most likely, this error will disappear when you fix the > > compiler flags according to > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags. I'm not > > sure, but out of the top of my head cmake honors the classical > > CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS > > environment variables, which should make it reasonably easy to fix this. > Homer use non conventional cmake compilation process. The developer prefer to > use standard make to call cmake to build the binary files. You must anyway fix this. You must apply %{optflags} as described in the link, and the empty debug package (which hopefully disappears once you fix this) is also a blocker. In the end, this might force you to patch the build files. However, I suspect you can handle it using environment variables such as CCFLAGS and CPPFLAGS. > > libHomer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libHomerConference.so > > These are trickier. Basically, rmplint complains because homer installs > > libraries among the public libraries without proper so-names. I'm somewhat > > worried about this, especially for libHomer.so. Does it need to be > > versioned? > > Anyone, out there? > I don't know ho to resolve this issue...for me can be ignored... To be frank, I don't know if it can be ignored, although I think it might be the case. Leaving this to whoever reviews this. > > Other remarks: > > Since you use desktop-file-install, the desktop-file-validate is not needed > > and > > can be removed > I follow the example reported in wiki page: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files No you don't, it clearly says desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate. > > IMHO it would be good to decrease the noise by removing comments such as > > "Add .desktop file". > The comments are problems? Sorry...I like comments to understand better what I > do in the spec file... I don't agree in this specific case, but this is a personal thing. Feel comfortable with you package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
