[Bug 1287846] Review Request: lib389 - python module to access the 389 DIrectory Server

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846



--- Comment #5 from mreynolds@xxxxxxxxxx ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
> (In reply to mreynolds from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > > >%{!?__python2: %global __python2 %__python}
> > > >%{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c "from >distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> > > 
> > > You don't need to define __python2, python2_sitelib macros unless you want
> > > package in RHEL 6 and older.
> > 
> > I was just following the rpmdevtool template, I will remove these lines.
> > 
> > > 
> > > >%define name lib389
> > > >%define version 1.0.1
> > > >%define prerel 1
> > > 
> > > These are redundant as well.
> > > 
> > > Do you want build lib389 in RHEL 5?
> > 
> > No, RHEL7 and up
> 
> Okay.
> 
> >%define prerel 1
> 
> Still redundant.

Why?  Please explain.  Since "release" gets %{?dist} I can not reuse "release"
for the source code version/layout.  Using "prerel", or some other variable,
would make future maintenance easier since there are several places that
reference it.  

Anyway, I just removed prerel and manually added the "1" to the various places
in the spec file.

> 
> >BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> >Prefix: %{_prefix}
> >Vendor: Red Hat Inc. <389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> >Full %clean section
> >%defattr(-,root,root,-)
> 
> Set automatically; please, remove them.
> 
> - Use %{__python2} macro in %build and %install

I thought you asked me to remove that?

> 
> - LICENSE must be tagged with %license

Sorry I missed this.

> 
> - Use %{python2_sitelib}/*, not %{python_sitelib}/*

Again I thought you wanted me to remove these.

> 
> General Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

Note - these docs say to follow(as closely as possible) the rpmdevtool
templates for spec files - these are obviously now outdated as you pointed out 
various issues in my spec file which directly came from these templates.

> Guidelines for Python code: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

Yes I've read these, but I was trying to respond to your suggestions.  Clearly
I misunderstood your comments.  I apologize.

I've uploaded the new spec file, and srpm. (same rpmlint results)

Thanks again for reviewing this!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review




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