On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:21:21 +0100, Joël Krähemann wrote:
>
> > My name is Joël Krähemann. I maintain Advanced Gtk+ Sequencer and I'd
> > like to provide it in fedora. Linux is my OS of choice since 2001.
> > Along the time I have used many distributions like debian, linux from
> > scratch, SUSE, fedora and a few others.
>
> Hello!
>
> Here find some helpful links about the Fedora Packager and their processes:
>
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
In particular, you should open a Review request for gsequencer as the next
step.
From a quick view at the spec file:
Source0 should be a full URL
'-n gsequencer' is a noop, just drop it for readability.
Similarly, %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} → %setup -q
or oven just %autosetup.
In %files:
%{_libdir}/gsequencer/* → %{_libdir}/gsequencer
(you need to "own" the directory too).
Similarly in %{_datadir}, if you run rpmlint I'm pretty sure it'll complain
about unowned directories.
In general, it's better to put each Requires/BuildRequires item on it's own
line. Diffs looks better and it's easier to spot mistakes.
No dots at the end of Summary.
Some of the explicit dependencies, e.g. Requires: libags, are most
likely uneeded — rpm generates dependencies on libraries automatically.
Also, I'm not sure you need so many subpackages: it's not Debian
where every teeny-tiny library needs a separate subpackage. In particular,
you can at least merge all the -devel subpackages into one.
But the package looks nice in general. Should not be an issue to get
it accepted.
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
