https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094057
Bug ID: 1094057 Summary: Review Request: libes - Managing an entity system in C++ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pierre@marijon.fr QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://static.pierre.marijon.fr/rpm/libes/libes.spec
SRPM URL: http://static.pierre.marijon.fr/rpm/libes/libes-0.5.2-0.1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Libes (Library Entity System), is an library for managing an entity system written in C++. For more info of Entity System Paradigme you can see http://entity-systems.wikidot.com/ .
Fedora Account System Username: natir
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094057
--- Comment #1 from pierre@marijon.fr --- *** Bug 1094056 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094057
--- Comment #2 from pierre@marijon.fr --- It's my first package and i need a sponsor (yes i read too fast the wiki).
* Upstream project page : https://github.com/jube/libes * Koji result http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6812591
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094057
Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
* Please enter your full name in the bugzilla account preferences.
* Consider running "fedora-review -b 1094057" to point that tool at this ticket for many helpful checks.
%package doc Summary: Documentation files for %{name} Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Is that -doc subpackage really arch-specific? It contains HTML documentation. "BuildArch: noarch" sounds plausible.
For reading the HTML documentation one does not need to install the base library package. Please don't add such a dependency to _independent_ -doc packages. If the documentation can only be displayed with a program in the base package, that would be an example of a case when to add such a dep.
In case you added the dep only for the license and directories included in the base package, consider duplicating the license file and dirs in the -doc package instead.
%files %{_libdir}/*.so %dir %{_defaultdocdir}/es %doc %{_defaultdocdir}/es/COPYING
Uh, that's odd.
If the package is named "libes", it ought to store doc files in a directory named "libes" not "es".
Btw, in spec files you can use %_docdir just fine, and files below /usr/share/doc are marked as %doc implicitly (see "rpm -E %__docdir_path").
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094057
--- Comment #4 from Pierre Marijon pierre@marijon.fr --- I follow your recommendation
Spec URL: http://static.pierre.marijon.fr/rpm/libes/libes.spec.0.2 SRPM URL: http://static.pierre.marijon.fr/rpm/libes/libes-0.5.2-0.2.fc20.src.rpm
fedora-review for 0.2 : http://static.pierre.marijon.fr/rpm/libes/review.txt.0.2 koji link : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6813416
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094057
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net ---
The tool has found an issue with your package. ;-)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094057
--- Comment #6 from Pierre Marijon pierre@marijon.fr --- Ok upstream add patch for documentation installation.
Spec URL: http://static.pierre.marijon.fr/rpm/libes/libes.spec SRPM URL: http://static.pierre.marijon.fr/rpm/libes/libes-0.5.3-0.1.fc20.src.rpm
local fedora-review (i check all is ok) : http://static.pierre.marijon.fr/rpm/libes/review.txt.0.5.3-0.1 koji link : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6826185
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094057
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jwakely@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely jwakely@redhat.com --- Summary: Library for managing an entity system written in c++
C++ should be capitalized. I would expect Entity System to be capitalized too if it's a technical term
%description If you do not know what an entity system is, you should read the following http://entity-systems.wikidot.com
This doesn't look like a very good description for the package! The link describes it as "Component/Entity System" which is a better (less generic) name. Wikipedia uses Entity-component system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity_component_system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094057
Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed| |2017-08-13 05:32:27
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- 404 not found and several years without activity
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla