[Bug 621898] Review Request: libwbxml - Library and tools to parse, encode and handle WBXML documents

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Aug 9 12:04:38 UTC 2010


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=621898

--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar <ppisar at redhat.com> 2010-08-09 08:04:37 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Some suggestions:
> 1.Provides:       wbxml2 = %{version}-%{release} is not useful since no rpm is
> actually depends wbxml2 explicitly.
> 
But it does not breaks anything. More ever think about third-party
repositories.

In addition, pure theoretically, there is a direct dependency:

$ repoquery --requires wbxml2-devel | grep wbxml2
libwbxml2.so.0
wbxml2 = 0.9.2-16.fc12
libwbxml2.so.0()(64bit)
wbxml2 = 0.9.2-16.fc12

One could say if wbxml2-devel is installed, wbxml2 is installed too. However
who knows how much broken system can an user have.

> 2.
> BuildRequires:  cmake, expat-devel, perl
> 
> Requires:      libxml2-devel, pkgconfig
> 
> rpmbuild will add pkgconfig as a dependency automatically[1],

What about EPEL-5? It's not supported currently, but I'd like to be prepared
for future possibilities.

> perl is on the exception list of Buildrequires[2]
> [2]http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions_2
>
It's not listed.

> 3.
> 
> %build
> # Upstream does not support in-source-directory building
> SRCDIR="$PWD"
> %define builddir ../build
> rm -rf %{builddir}
> mkdir %{builddir}
> cd %{builddir}
> %cmake "$SRCDIR"
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
> 
> ->
> 
>  %build
>  mkdir -p %{_target_platform}
>  pushd %{_target_platform}
>  %{cmake} ..
>  popd
> 
>  make %{?_smp_mflags} -C %{_target_platform}
> 
Why popd and then make -C if one can do make without -C and then popd?

> 4.
> 
> %files devel
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> %doc AUTHORS BUGS ChangeLog COPYING GNU-LGPL NEWS README References THANKS TODO
> 
> You should not try to add duplicate docs to -devel, rpmlint warnings can be
> safely ignored.
>
Ok. I will remove them but COPYING and GNU-LGPL because it's new rule that
every package must deliver license copy if some exists in sources.

-- 
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