[Bug 436] Review request: moonlight - Moonlight is an open source implementation of Microsoft Silverlight for Unix systems

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436





--- Comment #41 from Ismael Olea <ismael at olea.org>  2009-06-29 13:14:11 ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> ! The moonlight in Fedora 11 is compiled with --enable-moonlight=yes. So you
> may want to enable the "with_managed" for Fedora > 11.

No, I don't want. Please read previous comment in this bug.

> When I changed with_managed to yes, I got 
>    Bad build req: No Package Found for rsvg2-sharp. Exiting.
> on Fedora 11. What's wrong?

What is wrong is setting managed flag on. It's not really useful in 1.0.1, it's
outdated with the present 2.0 (which is not packageable still) and it's not
tested.

> * The %doc for all subpackages are the same, which results in duplicate files.
> Please list those files in the appropriate package only.

There is not duplications. RPM know how to manage them because he is aware
there are the same files, not duped ones. There is no warning about then and
they install smoothly. Try it if you are interested.

> * Please fix the rpmlints
>    moonlight-tools.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/mopen1
> ['/usr/lib64']
>    moonlight-plugin.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
> /usr/lib64/moon/plugin/libmoonplugin.so ['/usr/lib64']

Ok, I've never got that error. Now fixed.

>    moonlight.src: E: invalid-spec-name

That where an interin release, not really a problem. But now fixed anyway.

> > * Please remove the src/zip, cairo and pixman directories in %prep. We don't
> need them, we don't want them. You should use Fedora's minizip instead of
> src/zip

Ok. minizip wasn't trivial so I should to do a new patch. Fixed. The other ones
wasn't really used as you pointed. Fixed too.

> 
> * Additionally the files and directories
>    ./plugin/TODO: ASCII English text 
> [...]
> should probably go to appropriate %docs.

Not really as explained 

> ? Any reason why you are not touching/packaging the perf/ directory?

Yes. I don't know how useful it is. And the plugin works without it.

> ? What are those binary .pub and .snk files?

No idea. I've mimic the original Novell package here.


> ? Why is the package named "moonlight" and not just "moon"? What do other
> distros do?

Moonlight is the full name of this development. v2 is now called moonlight too.
Moon only could be confused to something browsing packages, it's not really
accurate and not using it will avoid any potential conflict problem

> * The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines.

See before.


> * The file LICENSE indicates different licenses for different parts. Please use
> the appropriate license(s) for each package

Maybe I'll do it if I feel motivated with the package approval.


> * Source should be given in full URL, with appropriate macros.

Ok, fixed.

> 
> * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)

Ok, fixed.


> * Be careful about directory ownerships. For instance the tools package has
>    %{_libdir}/moon/mopen.exe*
> where the directory %{_libdir}/moon/ is owned by the plugin package. But the
> tools package does not require the plugin package, leaving %{_libdir}/moon/
> unowned in case the plugin package is not installed. There are many other
> similar issues. Please check every file one by one.

Mainly it happens in the managed code sections. As before: not tested, not a
problem IMHO.


> Please address the above issues so we can proceed with the review.

http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/mono/moonlight-1.0.1-8.fc10.src.rpm
http://olea.org/tmp/moonlight.spec


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.