[Bug 456774] Review Request: libanculus-sharp - Reusable utility library written in C#

[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=456774

--- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2010-02-20 12:54:30 EST ---

(I've not checked yet if there are any mono guidelines in particular)

1)
$ rpmlint libanculus-sharp.spec 
libanculus-sharp.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab:
line 3)
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

2)
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/libanculus-sharp-0.3.1-1.fc12.src.rpm 
libanculus-sharp.src: W: strange-permission libanculus-sharp.spec 0777
libanculus-sharp.src: W: strange-permission libanculus-sharp-0.3.1.tar.bz2 0777

3)
$ rpmlint *x86_64.rpm
libanculus-sharp.x86_64: E: no-binary
libanculus-sharp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libanculus-sharp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libanculus-sharp-doc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libanculus-sharp-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

As you say I think these are okay, I need to check a bit myself.

4) Packaage contains:

/usr/lib64/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.Extended.dll
/usr/lib64/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.dll
/usr/lib64/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Gui.dll

but that directory is not owned or in a package that is pulled in.

5) Similar story for 
/usr/lib64/mono/libanculus-sharp

6) Similar also for 

/usr/lib64/mono/gac/Anculus.Core.Extended/0.3.1.0__f53db44f7305a799

Please check all the others.

7) Line 31 of the .spec file. The spacing is different to the other lines.

8) I would guess that with
%{__chmod} 755 autogen.sh
sh autogen.sh --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir}

if you call it with sh you don't need to chmod it first.

9) In the -doc package the files are not marked as %doc which 
   is possibly okay. They are needed at runntime?

10) The -doc package looks to be noarch so at least this sub package
    could me marked as noarch.

11) Why are the docs in 

/usr/lib64/monodoc

  rather than /usr/share or something? Though this starts to 
   cross into why monodoc itself is in there.

Steve

p.s The monodoc package needs a bug.

$ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/monodoc/monodoc.xml /usr/lib64/monodoc/
monodoc-2.4.3.1-1.fc12.x86_64
file /usr/lib64/monodoc is not owned by any package

-- 
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.