[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #950710|review? | Flags|| -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: indi-sx New Branches: f20 Owners: lupinix InitialCC: With new libindi release in f20 this package can be imported in f20 too :) -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn ||1784.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-11-01 12:56:20 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc21 -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #19 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Error: Package: indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc21.x86_64 (/indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc21.x86_64) Requires: libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Fedora 20. I guess this has to do with the API issue and the known koji build failures for F20. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #20 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- You're trying to install a f21 package on f21, that's your problem ;) And there is no API issue, the API changed = I only package for F21+ ;) -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
++ I don't have the time to read the code details, besides am no owner of
any INDI devices.
You did not comment on that. Honestly, I do worry about shipping dead code, at
least in the SRPM. Consistently thinking, I am talking about the platform
specific conditionals and so any code - but as far as I understand now that
dead code will in Fedora never be used but still shipped !! - in CMakelists.txt
content and also the CPack logic. It may confuse when you look at the code and
it is just NOOP over several lines. Please try to sort things out with help
from upstream. If upstream wants still to keep going with CPack, the maintainer
should really think about also using CPack for packaging what would IIRC bring
feature conflicts to rpmbuild. CMake was designed to generate makefiles
dynamically.
Why do we need that again on the meta level to generate also dynamic CMake
configuration, I don't understand, sorry. It should be the job of CMake itself
and already to care about platform specific stuff, doesn't it?
IMHO it's the job of the packager/maintainer to care about the packaging logic,
also CMake from upstream with maybe needed patches from downstream (Fedora).
When upstream is too lazy for caring about possible downstream, better ignore
them, there you are right but still what then to do with dead and not needed
code, just remove it by patch. That's how I understand Fedora policy.
As the other points with originally [?] are considered, those are now {x].
Therefore, I think the package is ACCEPT.
--
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
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Thank you for reviewing the package :) -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #16 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: indi-sx Short Description: INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices Upstream URL: http://indilib.org/ Owners: lupinix Branches: f21 InitialCC: -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- The package does not build for F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7941115 Though, it builds currently for F21+: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7941106 I assume that you don't want to provide your package for F20 then. Please confirm my assumption. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #5 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- I confirm this, the libindi package in F20 contains 0.9.6 and the api and abi of this version are not compatible with 0.9.9. So package only for F21+, an libindi update is not possible in F20 due to the changes since 0.9.6. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
--- Comment #6 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-sx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-sx-0.9.9-2.20141025svn1784.fc20.src.rpm
Now using the %{_udevrulesdir} macro consistently.
--
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
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Taken. Should not show any great issues due to quite similiarity to the other review of indi-cloud thingy. -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
++ = Remarks
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[?]: Package contains no static executables.
++ {*}Suggestion: Clean up CMakeLists.txt for specifical Fedora usage.
IMHO one general Makefile (or cmake in our case) for all thinkable platforms
is not useful, it includes also stuff for unsupported platforms and could pull
in bugs. That should be prevented as best as possible, so remove dead code.
Quite similiar logic to bundled libs, maybe compare analogues to guidelines.
I'll attach a clean CMakeLists.txt and a modified spec file, please take a
look.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), MIT/X11 (BSD like),
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/indi-sx/licensecheck.txt
++ OK, MIT is compatible to GPLv2+
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
++ see above {*}
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
++ I don't have the time to read the code details, besides am no owner of any
INDI devices.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
++ Original CMakeLists.txt support ARM only for Debian. Please ask upstream
about official
Fedora/ARM support.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[?]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
Note: Found : Packager: Raphael Groner
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #950710||review? Flags|| --- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Created attachment 950710 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=950710action=edit CMakeLists.txt with fedora specific cleanup I tried to convert it to a patch but without success. Maybe you can do it? -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Created attachment 950711 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=950711action=edit spec with patched cmake -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
--- Comment #11 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
First, thank you for reviewing the package :) Now lets go to the details
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #8)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
++ = Remarks
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[?]: Package contains no static executables.
++ {*}Suggestion: Clean up CMakeLists.txt for specifical Fedora usage.
IMHO one general Makefile (or cmake in our case) for all thinkable platforms
is not useful, it includes also stuff for unsupported platforms and could
pull
in bugs. That should be prevented as best as possible, so remove dead code.
Quite similiar logic to bundled libs, maybe compare analogues to guidelines.
I'll attach a clean CMakeLists.txt and a modified spec file, please take a
look.
I will *not* maintain a CMakeLists.txt specific to Fedora. It is not neccessary
here. And cmake means cross-platform make ;) I agree with you that some
cleanups in this file should be done. But this is not the place and *no* Fedora
specific cleanups. I will manage this with upstream in general.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), MIT/X11 (BSD like),
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/indi-sx/licensecheck.txt
++ OK, MIT is compatible to GPLv2+
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
++ see above {*}
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
++ I don't have the time to read the code details, besides am no owner of
any INDI devices.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
++ Original CMakeLists.txt support ARM only for Debian. Please ask upstream
about official
Fedora/ARM support.
You are wrong. What you mean with Debian ARM only is the CPack stuff. But this
doesn't matter anything here. We do not use CPack for packaging here ;) And
tell my any reason why this code should only work on Debian as it is compiled
from source.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]:
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
--- Comment #12 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-sx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc20.src.rpm
Removed the %{checkout} macro from changelog, was a bad idea :(
--
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
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #13 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- New Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7942652 -- 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 package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||projects...@smart.ms
--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
# Post-Release checkout containing some improvements
Release:1.%{checkout}%{?dist}
You should better use a timestamp additionally for a snapshot release
independently of pre/post-release logic. Cause if your checkout changes, you
would have to increase the main number also:
Release:1.20142510svn%{checkout}%{?dist}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
# For Fedora we want to put udev rules in %{_udevrulesdir}/
sed -i 's|/lib/udev|/usr/lib/udev|g' CMakeLists.txt
Why don't you use the macro then directly in the sed command line as you
already do in %files? Please change that to not confuse with the comment.
%install
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
%install
%make_install
Please comment why you prefer DESTDIR usage.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
--
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
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Correction:
Release:1.20141025svn%{checkout}%{?dist}
--
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
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
--- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1)
# Post-Release checkout containing some improvements
Release:1.%{checkout}%{?dist}
You should better use a timestamp additionally for a snapshot release
independently of pre/post-release logic. Cause if your checkout changes, you
would have to increase the main number also:
Release:1.20142510svn%{checkout}%{?dist}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
Please have a look at the definition of %{checkout} ;) It contains a timestamp
# For Fedora we want to put udev rules in %{_udevrulesdir}/
sed -i 's|/lib/udev|/usr/lib/udev|g' CMakeLists.txt
Why don't you use the macro then directly in the sed command line as you
already do in %files? Please change that to not confuse with the comment.
%install
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
%install
%make_install
Please comment why you prefer DESTDIR usage.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.
25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
According to your link there is *no* problem with DESTDIR according to the
guidlines!
--
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
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
