Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-04-14 20:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > > * DTDVERSION isn't usefull > > Its being used in a %post script. Kept. It is used only once, so it is better to replace by the value. > > * You don't use macros like %{_bindir} and the like. This is mandatory > > Thats because for correct usage of this package, it is mandatory to install > files in /bin and /lib (and not /usr/bin and /usr/lib) and according to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/RPMMacros there are no macros that satisfy > this. Any other places that macros are available, they are being used. Ok. But %{_lib} should be used too, it is lib64 sometimes, so /lib should be replaced by /%{_lib} Also the macros should be used in %install too. > > * the %clean section is wrong > > Fixed. No, the following line should be uncommented: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > * %deffatr is not standard > > I think it is fixed. Documentation isn't clear about the standard way of using > it. It is indeed fixed. > > * the devel and main package aren't set up how they should be. > > Not sure what you mean. They look good for me. the .so files should be in the devel package. It is usual to have, in the main package something like /lib/*elektra-filesys.so.* and in -devel: /lib/*elektra-filesys.so Same for /lib/*berkeleydb.so* Then devel should Requires: elektra-backend-berkeleydb = %{version}-%{release} > > * Why not use %configure? > > Because of the same reason %{_bindir} is not being used. Red Hat's %configure > forces a /usr/bin and /usr/lib, which is wrong for this package. Couldn't it be possible to use %configure and override the default flags by adding them in the end? Otherwise you'll have to set CFLAGS to $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. > We don't have a smaller changelog because we are building RPMs since the > beginning. The packaging is tightly integrated to the build system and the > changelog is automatically being appended to the specfile. Can we just leave a > better, more complete changelog this way ? No. It is much too verbose. Leave only the packaging infos, not everything. Sometime little is better... * The Version is wrong, should be 0.6. The Source may be then Source: http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/elektra/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz * libtool and gettext-devel are certainly not needed. * ldconfig call is needed for backend-berkeleydb too * rpmlint reports (among others) E: elektra binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /bin/kdb ['//lib'] * the %post action should only be done for the first install? In that case look at how to achieve that in scriptlet snippets. * The paragraph that appear in the elektra main package description shouldn't appear in the other subpackages summaries. * It is only an advice, and not a blocker, but I prefer listing files in bindir using the full names and not globs, such that it is easier to catch mistakes. * Also not a blocker, but I believe it would be clearer to have %{_datadir}/sgml/elektra-0.1.1/ * Some doc files are missing, like %docs AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
