https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829528 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #3) > * Distfile checksum mismatch: Agh, my bad. I had created the SRPM before > uploading the final 0.4 release file to ensure things would work... and then > forgot to regenerate the SRPM with the final tarball. Fixed. > Ah, good > * Not using ATF: If I enable ATF support, this will build and _install_ a > bunch of test programs. The reason for not installing these is the same as > in the ATF and Lutok packages: the tests are expected to go into > ${prefix}/tests at the moment, but that is most likely unacceptable as > mentioned earlier. I'd like to discuss this topic separately, make a > decision, and then enable the tests in all of atf, lutok and kyua-cli at > once in the same manner. > Ah, of course. That would not have been a review blocker anyway, I just didn't remember the reasoning -- thanks for the refresher! > * install -p: I'm not sure I understand your comment about this. The spec > file is not using install directly; it only uses install-info(1). All the > install(1) calls come from automake, and these should be the same for any > other package; correct? (I didn't do anything special for atf nor lutok, > for example.) > This used to be more of an issue in the past, when installing 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the same package would cause file overlaps in %{_datadir} (/usr/share) -- and unless the timestamps were identical RPM would refuse to do the install. I think now the checksums are compared so this is not that serious a problem anymore (plus since this package does not provide libraries, it's not that big a deal anyway). I didn't catch this problem when reviewing atf and lutok -- was not using the same review template I'm using now and it simply wasn't something I checked (my bad.. though again, it's a minor suggestion). It seems that what you want to do is override, in configure.ac, AC_PROG_INSTALL -- and then the right invocation would end up written into the Makefiles. See http://seul.org/docs/autotut/ But you can make that change in the next release, it's not urgent. It's just nice if the user can see when each of the files on their computer were actually last modified, instead of when the package was built (except for files that were created during the build process, where those two times would be almost identical) APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review