https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829860
Iain Arnell <iarn...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |iarn...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |iarn...@gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell <iarn...@gmail.com> ---
Okay, I'll bite - if only because I live in a community called Evergreen and we
don't have a public library system - maybe this will help ;)
It's very promising that you noticed the arch-dependent nature of the package
and came up with a solution. I had a similar issue with perl-Lingua-EN-Tagger
which I resolved by making the whole package arch-dependent, passing
INSTALLVENDORLIB=%{perl_vendorarch} to Makefile.PL so that the whole package
gets installed under %{_libdir}/perl5/vendor_perl. And since this approach
avoids conflicts entirely, I guess it counts as a better recommended practice.
You're quite right that rpmlint's no-binary "error" can be ignored in this
case, but we also build debuginfo packages and rpmlint also complains about
empty-debuginfo-package. In this case, it's appropriate to disable debuginfo
package by adding %global debug_package %{nil} to the spec file. (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo for more info).
Otherwise, it's a fairly simple package. There's just a few minor issues:
you don't need to specify the BuildRoot tag -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
you don't need to explicitly Require: perl(Unicode::Normalize) - rpm detects
this dependency automatically.
you should explicitly BuildRequire any dependencies that are part of perl-core
itself - although they're pulled in as transient dependencies at the minute,
they might not be in future (the Red Hat perl folks tend to pretty insistent on
this):
perl(base)
perl(Carp)
perl(charnames)
perl(constant)
perl(Encode)
perl(POSIX)
perl(Storable)
perl(strict)
perl(Unicode::Normalize)
perl(Unicode::UCD)
perl(warnings)
And as a sponsor, it would also be nice to see a couple of informal reviews of
other packages.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
--
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
