[Bug 1275888] Review Request: balde - a glib web microframework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275888 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net&gt; --- Can't fully understand the excitement about the packaging so far. * While the pkgconfig BuildRequires are mentioned in the guidelines, they don't add much value compared with specifying the needed packages in BuildRequires directly. Afterall, if the configure script really runs pkg-config queries to look for stuff, the .pc files must be present. If the BuildRequires were incorrect, the build would fail early which is not a big issue. * It's surprising that the spec file does not contain any %changelog section yet: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs * Consider running "rpmlint -i" on all (!) built packages, i.e. including the src.rpm package file. You *really* do not want to rename the spec file for each version upgrade. Certainly not within dist git. It must be named "balde.spec" only: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_File_Naming Perhaps you use a single directory for all your package versions of balde. You may want to adjust your RPM macros to set up a unique source directory per %version. The Group tag for base runtime library packages has been "System Environment/Libraries" for many years. None of these are needed. No doxygen generated docs are included, though. $ rpm -qpd balde-devel-0.1.2-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm $ rpm -qpd balde-0.1.2-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /usr/share/doc/balde/COPYING /usr/share/doc/balde/README.md $ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package Enable verbose build output with V=1 %make_build so you get to see the used compiler/linker flags actually, which can be a life-saver in case of problems when wrong flags and/or paths have been used during building. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Test_Suites While the dep on glib and gio is plausible (balde headers include glib/gio headers), the shared-mine-info dep is superfluous and very likely an artifact of squeezing it into the @GLIB_DEP@ configure macro. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text It belongs into the -devel package, doesn't it? Caution! Prefer "rm -f" in %install for all files you *really* do not want to include in any (sub-)package. Why? %exclude doesn't remove those files from the buildroot, but only from the list of files that must be included. It would still be possible to include them somewhere accidentally. And if "make install" did not install these libtool archives, %exclude would cause the build to fail, whereas "rm -f" would not. So, cleaning up the buildroot with "rm" is safer and hence superior. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component