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@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:
- 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)
- 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
- 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
- Is it worth including the demos in the devel package as doc files?
- yes, it is :-) Included underd doc/ in devel pkg