[Bug 473046] Review Request: miniupnpc - command line tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers as Linksys, D-Link etc

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Nov 29 14:31:22 UTC 2008


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473046





--- Comment #10 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro>  2008-11-29 09:31:20 EDT ---
What is the purpose of the line
  mv LICENCE LICENSE
from the %build section ?

Please do not compress the manpages yourself. rpmbuild will do this for you
(and might also accomodate other forms of compression than gzip)
Please use macros instead of explicit directories. This also goes for
%{_mandir} which should be used instead of /usr/share/man in %install

Also, please do not manually strip the binaries. rpmbuild will use these pieces
of info to build a separate package with debugging information (and strip them
from the final binaries afterwards

Please make sure that Fedora's mandatory compilation flags are used (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags ). Your spec
uses "-fPIC -O -Wall -DNDEBUG" instead.

Mock build fails on x86_64:
  RPM build errors:
    File not found by glob:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/miniupnpc-1.2-3.fc11.x86_64/usr/lib64/lib*.so.*
I have not examined the Makefile closely, but I suspect that the culprit is the
INSTALLDIRLIB line, which makes the generated libs to always be installed in
/usr/lib instead of using the correct path depending on architecture.

And last but not least, do not be shy and ADD changelog entries each time you
modify the spec, leaving the older entries in place. For instance now, by
looking at version "3" of the spec one could believe that this is the first
attempt (because of the "initial build" line). But I know this is not true,
because there exists a revision labeled "2".

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list