introducing 3e-calendar

[solarflow99]

This sums it up pretty well, for a package with a 3rd party file, I can say
my package also uses the same thing, maybe you can see the spec file as an
example:  http://jzygmont.fedorapeople.org/dosemu.spec

Choosing the Fedora release you want to build is mentioned here:
http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Import_your_package

I usually test the rpmbuild process on my own computer, and keep editing
the spec file until i'm satisfied with it enough to submit a build.  It
took me a lot of trial and error:)   I found this page was very helpful:
http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors




On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/11/2014 10:35 PM, Michal Altmann wrote:
>
>> BTW, I'd guess that unless you have some contacts the real bottleneck here
>>>> is to become sponsored. Your goal here is to package this particular sw.
>>>> However, becoming sponsored normally needs much more activity than that,
>>>> sponsors sponsor people after they have been active in much more than
>>>> just a
>>>> single package. Also, it's sometime easier to get sponsored in Fedora
>>>> than
>>>> in rpmfusion, but then you need to submit more packages. See [1]. Note
>>>> that
>>>> if you're sponsored in Fedora this applies also to rpmfusion.
>>>>
>>>>  Can you specified "much more activity" please?
>>
>
> Not really, my impression is that it depends on the sponsor  which
> eventually might look into this. There is input on this in [1]
>
>  We would like to
>> package this software that consists from 4 separate packages and we
>> are ready to contribute by other packages, for example, we would like
>> to add Metalog that is not coded by us.
>>
>
> Before this is over, you would probably also need to contribute by doing
> informal reviews of other packages, as described in [1]. It's a question of
> demonstrating that you know the Guidelines.
>
>  I thing that we have no chance to get sponsored directly in Fedora
>> because of non-free software as we found in guidelines. Maybe with 3rd
>> software such as Metalog.
>>
>
> Yup, that how it worked for me once in a time.
>
>  I have a question about form of spec file for binary package. I am
>> thinking about fixed dist and arch field. It is the right way to
>> create SRPM directly for the target system, that can run the binaries
>> ? What Ferdora release are you prefere for the first review ?
>>
>>
> You're  better off using Rawhide i. e., the upcoming Fedora 21 . Depending
> on if/when this is completed, you might want to add a F20 version (current
> release) as  well. This is really nothing you code into the spec, it's
> handled when you check it in into the VCS system (which is good o'l CVS on
> rpmfusion, git on Fedora). In those there is a specific branch for each
> Fedora version,  so the differences such as the different sources is
> reflected there.
>
> The differences in this case between F20 and rawhide/F21 should normally
> just be one or two macro definitions unless you are using some cutting edge
> functionality which isn't available in both versions. You should try to
> make the spec as generic as possible, it helps a lot when  maintaining it
> later.
>
> Cheers!
>
> --alec
>
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_
> into_the_packager_group
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/attachments/20140511/402c8104/attachment.html>