[Bug 520663] Review Request: telepathy-qt4 - Qt4 bindings for telepathy

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Oct 2 23:00:39 UTC 2009


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=520663





--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus at gmail.com>  2009-10-02 19:00:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > Why does doc require telepathy-farsight-devel to build?
> 
> I was including tests in the -doc package so I thought it was fair to keep the
> BuildRequires in there. I deleted the tests now and moved the BuildRequires
> for them in the main BuildRequires section.
>
I see. Well, if you intend for the users to be able to build the tests, then it
should have been a Requires:, not a BuildRequires: . But it's better to get the
tests run as part of the build process anyway.

> http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/telepathy-qt4/telepathy-qt4.spec.2
> http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/telepathy-qt4/telepathy-qt4-0.1.10-3.fc11.src.rpm

The patch can be cleaned up further: it appears that only the last part, that
modifies Makefile.in to not build examples, need to be kept.

You can drop all the touch scriptlets too.

- the Requires: qt in the main package is unnecessary, as your package
currently only generates static library archives. If/when it generates dynamic
.so.* files, the requirement on the correct libqt will be automatically
computed by RPM anyway.

Also, your -devel package currently Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release},
but the main package is not actually generated (because it contains no files).
You'd want to remove that requirement. And modify it for -doc, to require the
-devel subpackage instead.

(and hold on for a bit on the last paragraph -- I'll clarify on the packaging
list, just in case. static libs don't come often).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.




More information about the package-review mailing list