[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #31 from T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com> 2012-10-30
02:51:07 CET ---
Thanks for taking this!
(In reply to comment #30)
Issues
======
- As mentioned in comment 29, the source package does not contain the correct
version of the script.
Fixed.
- Why do you explicitly install COPYING, and list it with the full
path? Why
not just do "%doc %SOURCE2" in the %files section, and take advantage of the
automatic handling in rpm?
This doesn't work. RPM apparently expects to find %doc entries in the BUILD
directory. I ended up just copying %SOURCE2 in %prep and then using %doc
properly from there.
- I would probably have considered the rsvg-convert call as part of
%build
rather than %prep. But it's a matter of taste; if you disagree I won't insist.
I did it that way because somewhere I got the impression that %build should do
nothing for noarch packages.
- The Fedora packaging of Wine uses the category X-Wine. Maybe it
would make
sense to use it in winetricks too?
Fixed.
- Unless I'm mistaken, the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor
and
subdirectories are not owned by any package required by winetricks, right?
Unless I misunderstand the rules
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelin...),
that means that winetricks should also own /usr/share/icons/hicolor and
children.
That says directories should be owned by something in the "natural dependency
chain". winetricks brings in enough GNOME stuff to ensure that directory
exists.
MUST Items
==========
[-] rpmlint output is clean [the script version issue]
rpmlint output is now clean:
$ rpmlint SPECS/winetricks.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/winetricks-20120912-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[-] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source
Fixed, as mentioned above.
[-] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
This is fine, as explained above.
[?] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported
architectures.
This should be fixed now.
The new version is here:
Spec: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks.spec
SRPM: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-20120912-2.fc17.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.