[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Review request...



On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 16:10 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> Hello,
>    I just posted my first review request a few days ago. I think someone 
> has been trying to help me through that process. Up to now I've felt 
> like I've been following instructions. Could someone please review the 
> information in the following (not necessarily review the request), to 
> see if I've completely lost it and am not understanding what is being 
> requested of me? I feel like I'm complying but got some odd message 
> about not following instructions and so won't be helped. When I think 
> I'm doing what they ask.
> 
>    Anyway a total packaging noob (for fedora atleast, we maintain a 
> bunch of software in RPM format for CentOS and Fedora workstations 
> inhouse). I've read the guidlines as best I can, and responded to 
> requests on the review so I'm just wondering what I may be missing...
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537587
> 
> Thanks,
> Nathanael
> 
Hm... on a very quick first look, you obviously don't follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Release
Your release should look something like 0.x.BETA4, not just BETA4. Plus
every time you update the SPEC, you should also increase the x ;-) 

I'm not sure if it's explicitly in the guidelines somewhere or not
(haven't ever used this kind of thing myself), but you appear to
generate subpackages based on some build time conditionals -- (at least
IMHO) it's not a good approach. Do you really need these conditionals
anyway? Why not just build all the subpackages that are worth building?

Martin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]