https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #5 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #4)
I return and ready to work.
- First of all, we must understand name of last sources:
3.2.2-p1 Jul 27, 2012 Wt 3.2.2 patch-level 1
It pre-release or post-release of 3.2.2? Then package name should be if pre: wt-3.2.2-0.1.p1 if post: wt-3.2.2-2.p1 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non- Numeric_Version_in_Release
It's a post-release. On http://sourceforge.net/projects/witty/files/wt/3.2.2/ you can find version 3.2.2, that was uploaded before 3.2.2-p1. You are right about the version scheme. I've got the naming convention wrong, when reading these guide lines last time. wt-3.2.2-1.p1 should be the correct one.
- I think subpackages -devel and -examples can be merged. Because all
header files should be in devel. And install -examples without -devel does not make sense.
I'm not sure about that. I followed a qt rpm package example, which bundles both binary examples and their source file into one. I'd rather not move example source files into devel, since they are not neccessary to build anything against wt library. Probably better solution would be not to make and -examples pkg, add their source files to -doc package and let the user build them, if he wants to.
- Remove all defattr... from %files section.
- Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from %install section.
Ok. Also the %clean section is not neccessary.
- Why you convert absolute symlink to relative? rpmlint warning on it.
Rpmlint complains about both relative and absolute ones. This is one more reason to package the examples into doc without binaries. Because this package can not be rid of rpmlint warnings.
Please check all packages (and srpm and spec) with rpmlint tool.