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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-16 03:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > Actions(In reply to comment #7) > > I must be missing something very basic: > > > > # rpm -qlp CGAL-3.2.1-14.i386.rpm > > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1 > > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE > > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.FREE_USE > > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.LGPL > > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.QPL > > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/README.Fedora > > > > This doesn't look like a reasonable packaging to me. > > > > Also: > > > > # rpmlint CGAL-*3.2.1-14.i386.rpm > > E: CGAL devel-dependency CGAL-devel > > E: CGAL no-binary > > W: CGAL-devel no-dependency-on CGAL > > CGAL is a meta-package that requires CGAL-libs, CGAL-devel, and CGAL-sources. Contradicts Fedora conventions and IMNSOH, is complete non-sense. Consider this to be a MUST FIX. Put the run-time libs into CGAL or CGAL-libs and the devel files into *-devel. > > E: CGAL-devel file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/CGAL/make/makefile > > E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh > > E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh > > As far as I know, these rpmlint errors should be ignored. Nope, these scripts are incomplete. MUSTFIX > (In reply to comment #8) > > Further issues: > > > > - The *-devel package ships /usr/include/CORE > > IMO, this directory name is too general. > > CGAL-3.2.1 ships CORE-1.7, http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/core_pages/intro.html > This directory is from CORE. And? This doesn't answer my remark. > > - Static libs: > > /usr/lib/libCGALQt.a > > /usr/lib/libcore++.a > > upstream libCGALQt is static only, as indicated in comment #1, as well as > upstream libcore++. I know that static libraries should be avoided "as far as > possible", in Fedora. Is the upstream devs choice a sufficient reason? Formally not, but it's sufficient reason for me not to approve a package and to classify a package's quality as "low" ;) > > - A more general design problem: > > Some headers in /usr/include/CGAL hard-code configuration-time detected > > * system features, e.g. the version of zlib and Qt > > > > * compiler characteristics, e.g. endianness. > > Yes, it should only be /usr/include/CGAL/compiler_config.h. Is it a blocker? Well, there actually are 2 issues with this. - Package dependencies. You will have to find a way to handle the hard-coded version dependencies in rpm. - Hard-coding compiler characteristics is a common design flaw many packages suffer from. This should not be much of a problem for current Fedora, but can easily become one. In many cases, such stuff disqualfies a package from inclusion in multilib'ed distros. This is an upstream problem, which probably doesn't affect current Fedora. [Wrt. endianness: Many people miss that endianness is a compiler feature. Packages hard-coding endianness break on biendian targets, e.g. for multilib'ed mips and sh distros] -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review