Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673
Kalev Lember <kalevlem...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kalevlem...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalevlem...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> New potential packager, doing informal reviews as requested in 'How to get
> sponsored'.
Good work Jeremy!
> Full review included below; the only major point I noticed was a lack of
> Requires for any of the gtk/glib libraries.
Like Yanko said above, rpm autogenerates Requires for dynamically linked
libraries, no need to list them again manually. Note the
"libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)" and others down below, this is how an autogenerated
dep on the gtk library looks like.
$ rpm -qp --requires swell-foop-3.7.92-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit)
libXdamage.so.1()(64bit)
libXext.so.6()(64bit)
libXfixes.so.3()(64bit)
libXi.so.6()(64bit)
libXrandr.so.2()(64bit)
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libclutter-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libclutter-gtk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libcogl-pango.so.12()(64bit)
libcogl.so.12()(64bit)
libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
> A minor nit - the guidelines say 'MUST' run desktop-file-install; this .spec
> only does a desktop-file-validate. Not sure if this spec or the guidelines
> should change...
Yeah, the wording in the guidelines is unclear. There's two distinct cases:
1) The package doesn't include the desktop file and we instead ship one in the
rpm package as a downstream change. In this case, like the guidelines say, we
MUST use the 'desktop-file-install' as opposed to just copying the file to the
final location.
2) The package includes a desktop file and installs it to the final location
itself. In that case, it doesn't make much sense to install it again with
'desktop-file-install'; this is where 'desktop-file-validate' is appropriate.
Also, the guidelines say that it's either one or the other. Quoting:
"one MUST run desktop-file-install (in %install) OR desktop-file-validate (in
%check or %install)"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=L5liI4Jy10&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
