https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578
--- Comment #3 from Denis Arnaud <denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org> --- Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2.spec SRPM URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2-0.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm [For later reference, I just add the corresponding URLs of the packaging guidelines] (In reply to comment #1) > The build doesn't respect Fedora's compiler flags: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags You are right. I found a work around, redefining the CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS environment variables. It may not be the cleanest way to do it, but I avoided to have to patch the Makefile in the source tar-ball. If you have a better idea, do not hesitate. > Please remove the defattrs, as they are the default. Reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions You are right. Done > If you don't go for EPEL 5, remove the clean section, the rm in the install > section and the buildroot definition. I intend to package re2 for EPEL (5 and 6) as well. > You don't need the LICENSE file in the devel package. Don't know whether the > README is useful there. Reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplicate_Files You are right. As a consequence, there is no %doc files in the -devel sub-package, and rpmlint is not happy with that (it issues a warning). But I believe that we can live with that :) > The description is very long and a bit like documentation in some sections. You are right. I reduced it while keeping the essential I believe. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
