Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 pertusus@xxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus@xxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2007-02-17 17:53 EST ------- The package should be adjusted to adhere to the fedora packaging guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines for the merge of fedora Core and fedora Extras. Issues: * the Source should lead to a real url * BuildRoot is not the preferred one * PreReq should be replaced by the appropriate Requires(post).... In the case of boost, an even better solution would be to use %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig * BuildRequires of libs shouldn't be necessary, they are brought in by the -devel, so the following should be removed: BuildRequires: python BuildRequires: bzip2-libs BuildRequires: zlib BuildRequires: libicu * there shouldn't be a mail sent for the test results in the default case. If you really want it, I think you should consider using a conditional. * Boost Software License seems to me to be very similar with the MIT license. Maybe MIT-like could be used? * in the %doc of the main package there should certainly be LICENSE_1_0.txt README, and many html files from the source directory, for example the faq, but also many others. * why don't you use bjam for installing? * in the doc subpackage the directory should be tagged with %doc. * what you do with soname is dubious. Why don't you use the upstream numbering? * the %optflags are not used during the build. * It is not very clear to me whether the devel package requires zlib-devel, bzip2-devel, and so on, or not. * there is a very strange Obsoletes: boost-doc <= 1.30.2 * the main package should certainly Provides: boost-python = %{version}-%{release} * rpmlint shows that - there are bad perms for static libs, they should be 0644 - some source files have bad perms, they shouldn't be executables - there are some scripts mixed with the headers, that were certainly used during build, they should be removed. and W: boost macro-in-%changelog check W: boost rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT E: boost no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install There are also many undefined-non-weak-symbol W: boost undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libboost_python.so.1.33.1 PyExc_ImportError for libboost_python, the python library should certainly be used during the link of that library. * the static libraries should certainly be moved to another subpackage like boost-static or boost-devel-static or something similar * mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir} is unuseful * add dots in %description * -doc should be in Group Documentation (although Group doesn't matter much) and -devel in Development/Libraries * it seems to me that -doc shouldn't require the main package. * you should keep the timestamps for doc and headers by using -p Suggestions: * add / in %files to directory, to show visually that these are directories and not files * use %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root, root) * put the html doc in the -doc subbpackage docdir and not in the main package docdir, using %doc -- 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