[Bug 659972] Review Request: votca-csg - a systematic coarse-graining toolkit

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=659972

--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> 2010-12-05 06:08:48 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > You're not a Fedora packager yet, right?
> Yes, but I would like to stay on the upstream side and get involved if
> something needs to be added to the official votca release.

Hmm, we're *downstream* in Fedora.

If you want to become a Fedora packager, you'll need to get a sponsor.

I am willing to sponsor you if you show me your knowing of the Fedora
guidelines, most importantly
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Additionally to the Packaging Guidelines, there are a bunch of language /
application specific guidelines that are linked to in the Packaging Guidelines.

Here are some tricks of the trade:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues

Normally I sponsor people who have made at least two submissions and performed
a couple of informal reviews of packages of other people. However, as in this
case your submissions are two spec files written by other people (that is,
myself), I'll require that you generate two packages of your own. Other
sponsors may have different criteria.

I won't perform the official review of votca-tools or votca-csg, since I've
written both spec files originally.

As a general guideline: please review only packages *not* marked with
FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Your sponsor will have to do the full formal review after you
to check that you have got everything correctly. Once you have been sponsored
you will be able to do formal reviews of your own.


> >  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
> > clearly states:
> > "Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when
> > absolutely necessary."
> This seems correct to me due to the fact that dynamically linked binaries will
> need the shared library.

The thing is that normally it's not necessary for dynamically linked binaries,
as RPM will add dependencies on the relevant library (e.g. libgmx_d.so.6, or
libvotca_tools.so.0).

-- 
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.