[Bug 230142] Review Request: SBLIM megapackage

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: SBLIM megapackage


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230142





------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2007-03-05 14:07 EST -------
Just a few comments from a beginner
- all SourceN should be full URL; according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL , one should use smtg similar
to Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Could you please explain why %dist provided by the build system is not
satisfactory and you rely on a specific custom macro (%{?!LINUX_DISTRIBUTION:
%define LINUX_DISTRIBUTION fc6}) ?
- perl is on the exception list, so it does not need to be listed as BR; OTOH
depending on the requirements of the packaged software and on the avenue taken
by the on-going discussions which take place these days, perl-devel MIGHT need
to be needed. See
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00025.html for
some details.


And last but not least, mock build fails. The build log ends with:
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libLinux_NFSv3SettingContext.so
matches
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libcmpiOSBase_BootOSFromFSProvider.so
mat
ches
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libSyslog_ServiceProcess.so
matches
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libSyslog_LogRecord.so matches
Found '/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild' in installed files; aborting
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.44358 (%install)

- your approach of including 11 different programs in a single megapackage leads
to the situation that, if any of the 11 needs rebuilding, the only solution is
to rebuild ALL of them. Even if the version and releases for the non-modified 10
other are preserved, they will still be built (even if they will not be pushed
after that)
- The actual install is done in a global %build. This kind of violates the
current practices.

I for one am in favor of keeping the packages separated, with clean and clear
(read: %make / %install) specs for each one of them. If needed, a meta-package
could also be created so that yum install sblim would pull in all the stuff.
Since they are similar, 4 of them have already been approved and provide rather
important stuff, I am confident that the reviews would not have problems.


-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]