: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. : Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > /etc/nf refers to /etc/my.cnf, and this is provided by : Package requires other packages for directories it uses. : Development files must be in a -devel package : Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. : Sources contain only permissible code or content. : Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging : Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets Share some similarities - if you based on upstream - include this I guess one should communicate this choice upstream.Īnother comment: the upstream and the current spec Hooksdir=/etc/mylvmbackup/hooks in /etc/nf , but we can't use %config under /usr in Fedora. > I see this is how mylvmbackup is packaged upstream Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm = Pass, = Fail, = Not applicable, = Not evaluated I think starting a three-way-merge from existing spec, Marcin's spec and upstream's spec will give us some solid base to build-up from here. unbundling libs.jar and removing unneeded libgrowl. There are some nice patches from debian avail, esp. > upstream by davmail (i based on it) and not try make one from scratch. > we should profit from debian peoples work and original spec distributed > I have also a general comment for packaging: OK, so just attach your patch to this bug, so we can start discussing about. > If nobody objects i will create a patch that is based on bug #894413 as orig > See bug #894413 comment #15 - i have a spec based on scronly working, itĪnother good point to start further process. (In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #21) > there seems to be an "srconly" tarball which does not bundle any libraries. (In reply to Marcel Wysocki from comment #20) It would be nice if we converge our efforts, how could we organize that? patch for build.xml:Īnother patch removes dependency on libgrowl, which seems to be needed only for OSX. Please note that davmail requires several patches, already worked-out by debian community, in order to build without redistributing jars (e.g. The latest effort spec for fedora is available at running davmail as an unpriviledged-user service There are also some features included in the original spec and missing in bug #894413: Without being aware of this rewiew request, I have been working on the original spec file, distributed in the davmail project: If you need any help feel free to PM me directly. I'll start next review on updated pkg, then. jar-files (shipped in Sources0 and redistributed in rpm), see: įilename : /usr/share/java/commons-codec.jarĪpache-commons-collections-3.2.įilename : /usr/share/java/commons-collections.jarġ:įilename : /usr/share/java/commons-httpclient.jarįilename : /usr/share/java/commons-httpclient3.jarĪpache-commons-logging-1.1.įilename : /usr/share/java/commons-logging-adapters.jarįilename : /usr/share/java/commons-logging-api.jarįilename : /usr/share/java/commons-logging.jarįilename : /usr/share/java/jackrabbit-webdav.jarįilename : /usr/share/java/woodstox-core-asl.jarĬheck which are actually needed BuildRequires, if not already pkged for Fedora package them from original upstream source, and build/link (eg.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |