Seeking advice: Apparently, Sony Vaio laptops are not available in every
architecture (no ppc for example). Should I limit the architectures this package
would build for?

That would make sense to me.  Vaio only comes in i386, right?  :-)  

(In reply to comment #2)
> That would make sense to me.  Vaio only comes in i386, right?  :-)  

I believe so. Or should I make it i686?

Second try, adding an ExclusiveArch tag for i386 and i686:

Spec Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl.spec
SRPM Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl-1.9-1.2.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Dec 26 2005 Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh> 1.9-1.2
- Add ExclusiveArch

(In reply to comment #4)
> Second try, adding an ExclusiveArch tag for i386 and i686:

This IMHO is wrong -- just use 'ExclusiveArch: i386'. Otherwise the buildsys
probably will build the package for i386 and i686 without a reason. 

(In reply to comment #5)
> This IMHO is wrong -- just use 'ExclusiveArch: i386'. Otherwise the buildsys
> probably will build the package for i386 and i686 without a reason. 

Grepping some FC4 spec files, it seems that some use a "%{ix86}" macro (acpid,
ant, apmd, ccs, cman, compat-gcc-296, cpufreq-utils, ...), some use "i386" only
(awesfx, compat-slang, cpuspeed, crash, devhelp, diskdumputils, ...)

eclipse apparently has switched from "i386" to "%{ix86}" some time in May 2005:
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/eclipse/FC-4/eclipse.spec?r1=1.126&r2=1.127

So apparently "i386 i686" is bad. I guess I should switch to "%{ix86}" because
that is also what configure-thinkpad (from extras) uses.

Third try, 

Spec Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl.spec
SRPM Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl-1.9-1.3.src.rpm

%changelog
* Mon Dec 26 2005 Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh> 1.9-1.3
- Change ExclusiveArch to %%{ix86}

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > This IMHO is wrong -- just use 'ExclusiveArch: i386'. Otherwise the buildsys
> > probably will build the package for i386 and i686 without a reason. 
> Grepping some FC4 spec files, it seems that some use a "%{ix86}" macro (acpid,
> ant, apmd, ccs, cman, compat-gcc-296, cpufreq-utils, ...), some use "i386" only
> (awesfx, compat-slang, cpuspeed, crash, devhelp, diskdumputils, ...)

Those are build with a different buildsys -- so only partly of interest here.
 
> So apparently "i386 i686" is bad. I guess I should switch to "%{ix86}" because
> that is also what configure-thinkpad (from extras) uses.

configure-thinkpad was never build in plague. 

Technically you are correct with %{ix86}  -- but as I said, plague will rebuild
this for i386, i586, i686 (and maybe even athlon) IIRC (correct me if I'm
wrong). There is no reason for that. So is still vote for: 'ExclusiveArch: i386'

(In reply to comment #7)
> configure-thinkpad was never build in plague. 
> 
> Technically you are correct with %{ix86}  -- but as I said, plague will rebuild
> this for i386, i586, i686 (and maybe even athlon) IIRC (correct me if I'm
> wrong). There is no reason for that. So is still vote for: 'ExclusiveArch: i386'

I guess you're wrong. Grepping Extras packages from 'development', the following
use "%{ix86}", but I can see no i586 or i686 RPM in the built RPMs:

athcool.spec:ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86}
atitvout.spec:ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86}
camstream.spec:ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86} x86_64
Glide3.spec:ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} alpha ia64 x86_64
jogl.spec:ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} ppc
...

Checking dates, athcool, for example, appears to be last rebuilt on 2005-12-03,
when the plague system was in place:

1538: athcool (athcool-0_3_11-3_fc5)  gajownik   needsign/success
        hammer2.fedora.redhat.com(i386):
3150b8e1da473c5338699cf8f9cb31cd1d85262d done/done

(In reply to comment #8)
> I guess you're wrong. 

According to your data: yes. But I tried with your latest package in a local
plague-server and it build the package for i386 and i686...

/me is even more confused now. But it's seems not that important...

Apparently FE's build system takes care of %{ix86} properly, as is also evident
from newer builds. So the latest spec and SRPM are fine. Anybody who cares to
review?

Updated version, now using the %{?dist} tag:

Spec Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl.spec
SRPM Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/spicctrl-1.9-1.4.src.rpm

Release versions are always integers, not "1.4". You have might done this for
the review, but please don't do it for releases. So please create a "2" release.

Other then that, no issues. rpmlint gives one warning:

W: spicctrl dangerous-command-in-%post rm

Which i guess is fine, assuming that the device would not be in use.
I'm 500km from my vaio right now, but I will be able to check the functionality
next week.

FE-APPROVED