Hallo! I announced gdal on fedora.us and last week I got some comments on my package[1]. Some of them are quite clear and will be fixed when I prepared my new package but I didn't understand all of them. Perhaps you can comment on them: > Minor: > * Permissions on files in *.src.rpm: > W: gdal strange-permission gdal-1.2.1.tar.gz 0600 > W: gdal strange-permission gdal.spec 0664 > W: gdal strange-permission gdal-install.patch 0664 What are the permission supposed to be? > > * Poor quality of the configure script and makefile systems. > > Severe: > * Package does not honor $RPM_OPT_FLAGS Can you please give me a pointer where I find more information on $RPM_OPT_FLAGS? I did have a look at http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/developers-guide/ but couldn't find anything. > * Partially low coding quality: > ... > gdal_wrap.c:1136: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will > break > strict-aliasing rules > gdal_wrap.c: In function `py_StringListToList': > gdal_wrap.c:1205: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will > break > strict-aliasing rules > gdal_wrap.c: In function `ptrptrset': > [Dozens of similar warnings more.] > > As the package is reported to work on ia32, these warnings are > unlikely to break > the package, but they very likely cause the package to be > non-functional with > future GCCs and on other architectures. OK. I will inform the upstream author of the package. Do you have other suggestions what can be done regarding this issue? > Critical: > * The rpm does not build: > ... > RPM build errors: > File not found: /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/gdal-root/usr/lib/debug > * Has "make %{?_smp_mflags}" instead of "make" been tried? No it hasn't but I will add it to my specfile. > * rpmlint is right about these two errors: > > E: gdal configure-without-libdir-spec > E: gdal hardcoded-library-path in > %{buildroot}/usr/lib/python%{PYTHON_VERSION}/site-packages > > * A lot of the explicit "Requires: proj, xerces-j, libjpeg, > shapelib, libungif, > zlib, libpng, postgresql-libs" ought to be dropped. Explicit > dependencies on > library package names ask for trouble. Most of the libraries surely > are > automatic dependencies already. Check output of "rpm --query > --requires > PACKAGENAME". OK. But how can I get the information about the package that has to be installed to fulfill the various dependencies. This is the reason why you must provide the names of all packages that have to be installed when you prepare a debian package. In my opinion this is also useful for an RPM based package. There shouldn't be trouble with explicityl asking for a specific package since gdal is explicitly build for Fedora. Thus all necessary packages should be available and if there are two different packages that can fulfill the dependencies I can specify both with '|'. Of course if there is an official policy or an agreement that explicit dependencies shouldn't be used I will delete them. A last issue: You mentioned to have used rpmlint on my package. So I did this as well and got lots of new warnings and errors among them E: gdal executable-in-library-package /usr/bin/gdalwarp E: gdal non-versioned-file-in-library-package /usr/share/gdal/esri_extra.wkt E: gdal non-versioned-file-in-library-package /usr/share/man/man1/ogrtindex.1.gz W: gdal devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/_gdalmodule.a rpmlint is right: These package should rather be in gdal-bin, python-gdal etc. My question: How shall I define subpackage in the specfile so that the package names will not be libgdal-bin but gdal-bin etc. Is this possible? BTW: Is there a reason why rpmlint is not mentioned on http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy? IMHO it helps to avoid lots of problems when packaging. Thus the packages will probably be of better quality when they are announced on fedora.us. Cheers, Silke [1] https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1964 -- Silke Reimer Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/ FreeGIS http://freegis.org/
Attachment:
pgpW4eoCDUR3z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
