[Bug 653971] Reviews Request: openfetion - A Fetion client written using GTK2+

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Nov 21 19:34:09 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=653971

--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> 2010-11-21 14:34:08 EST ---
A brief look at the spec file told me the following:


> Summary:		A Fetion client written using GTK2+

> %description
> Openfetion is a Fetion client written using GTK2+,
> based on Fetion v4 protocol.

Both %summary and %description could try to explain what "Fetion" is. For
example:

  Summary: GTK2+ based client for the Fetion instant messaging protocol

And %description should expand on that. Just repeating a "Name" isn't helpful.


> %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}

Option  -n %{name}-%{version}  is the default.


> %files -f %{name}.lang
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
[...]
%{_datadir}/%{name}/resource/newmessage.wav
%{_datadir}/%{name}/skin/*
[...]
%{_datadir}/%{name}/resource/license.txt

Several directories are not included in the package correctly:

  %{_datadir}/%{name}/
  %{_datadir}/%{name}/resource/
  %{_datadir}/%{name}/skin/

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories

As a directory added to a  %files  section will be included recursively, you
may need to include directories only with the  %dir  attribute.


> %files -n %{libname}
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/resource/city.xml
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/resource/province.xml

Same here. Plus, you need to decide on directory ownership between this
%libname package and the main %name package.

> %{_libdir}/libofetion.so*

This is wrong. Only the *.so.* files belong into the %libname package. The *.so
symlink belongs into the -devel 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.


More information about the package-review mailing list