[Bug 471575] Review Request: libnautilus-vcards - Nautilus vcard context menu extension

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471575





--- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter <fabian at bernewireless.net>  2008-11-19 09:50:38 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Oops, to late... I've done  bug 470066 in a more formal manner, and put remarks
> on bug 470547 and bug 470155

Just to be clear, I'm not a sponsor but I can help you with this package.  It
was just a suggestion about the reviews without any further investigation on
your work.

(In reply to comment #6)
> - In my case, the spec file is part of the source tree, living in the same
>   svn repo as the source. I have actually thought about this... which 
>   doesn't mean I'm sure. But to me it seems reasonable to use the svn 
>   version in this case, since spec and source is always in sync. Or?

More about the release tag, see below.

> - Auto(re)conf needs the gettext m4 macros in gettext-devel

I just quoted the guidelines.  So, you are right.

(In reply to comment #7)
> - Trying to find a balance in when to define macros I have 
>   removed %pkg and %pkgdatadir, but kept %schemadir, %plugindir and
>   %download_url. If you insist, I'll remove them. But I feel they make
>   things a better e. g., by making the scriptlets a bit more more concise.
>   And personally, I avoid source lines > 72 chars; hence %download_url

I can live with that.  Spec files are just easier to read for other packages
when only 'standard' macros are used.  

> - And still svn-based revision. I'm not stubborn, but a little interested
>   what the arguments are in a situation when the spec file release is the
>   same as the source release... The reasons to stick to svn # are obvious,
>   but I don't have to complete picture.

I think that your release is a post release.  The naming guidelines have some
examples.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages

"Release: The initial value of the release should normally be "1%{?dist}".
Then, increment the number every time you release a new package for the same
version of software. If a new version of the software being packaged is
released, the version number should be changed to reflect the new software
version, and the release number should be reset to 1."

>From my point of view the release tag should look like this

Release:        1.%{svnversion}svn%{?dist}

> http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dt-contacts/libnautilus-vcards-48M.spec

This way the name of the spec file didn't match the guidelines.  I'm not an
expert on exceptions.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.