[Bug 659082] Review Request: redland-bindings - language bindings for redland

[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=659082

--- Comment #8 from Thomas Vander Stichele <thomas at apestaart.org> 2011-02-07 14:04:43 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Thanks for the update. It is now in much better shape. I still have a few
> questions though:
> 
> ? Do we really need these:
>    %{?!pybasever:%{expand:%%define pybasever %(%{__python} -c "import sys ;
> print sys.version[:3]")}}
> 
>    %if "%{pybasever}" == "2.3"
>    Requires:       python-abi = 2.3
>    %endif
> 
> Python-2.3 is a bit too old. I don't even remember what Fedora version came
> with it. This is not a blocker but I am curious why you have this in the
> specfile.

ok, removing.

> 
> ! php_extdir doesn't match the guideline
>    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#PECL_Modules
> 

ok, changed.


> ? How about instead of
>    %attr(664,root,root) %doc perl/example.pl
> just
>    %doc perl/example.pl


by default it is executable, so rpmlint complains.

> 
> ? Why is this file a ghost?
>    %ghost %{python_sitearch}/RDF.pyo
>

removed.

> ! I am still not sure how to handle the common %doc files. I will send an email
> to the packaging list. In case we need a common package, we will probably need
> a versioned requires, such as
>    Requires:       redland-bindings = %{version}-%{release}
> in the subpackages.

I don't see why it needs to be versioned ? If this package only contains
docs/license info then it's not that important IMO.

FWIW rpmlint still errors about a package without any binaries.


The licensing situation is cleared up in a commit, so I adapted the license
field too.  Will build new binaries.

-- 
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.