[Bug 629744] Review Request: sparkleshare - sharing work made easy

[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=629744

Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |awilliam at redhat.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |awilliam at redhat.com

--- Comment #8 from Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> 2011-09-01 19:02:42 EDT ---
Picking up the review...

0.2.4 is slightly old now - upstream is up to 0.2.5 - but meh, no biggie.

It builds on 64-bit F16 - good!

rpmlint:

[adamw at adam SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*.rpm
sparkleshare.x86_64: E: no-binary
sparkleshare.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

these are OK, as per Alex's comment #7, as this is a Mono app.

smartirc4net isn't split out yet as that review isn't complete, I guess I'll
pick that up too. So proceeding as if smartirc4net was split out:

all the MUSTs and SHOULDs look good. Concerning the Mono policy, I have one
issue:

"For a while, Fedora considered mono packages to be architecture-specific, and
installed assemblies to %{_libdir}. However, after discussions with upstream,
we now consider mono packages to be architecture (and platform) independent.
This means that mono packages should be correctly installed into the GAC in
/usr/lib or installed into /usr/lib/PACKAGENAME.

As a notable exception, any ELF binary libraries generated in a mono package
must be correctly installed into %{_libdir}, because these files are
architecture-specific."

This spec installs both DLLs and the EXE to %_libdir, not /usr/lib . Are they
'ELF binary libraries' and hence arch-specific, or should they in fact be in
/usr/lib ?

Seems a bit odd that the file list specifies /usr/bin and /usr/share/blahblah;
I'd expect to see %_bindir and %_datadir instead.

I'd usually use a slightly less specific form for the manpage in the files
list, so additional manpages get picked up without adjusting the spec, and if
we ever decide to compress man pages with something other than gzip that
wouldn't be a problem either.

With the above caveats, I'd say this is looking good; please respond to the
major point raised. thanks!

-- 
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.