[Bug 1474033] Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033

Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #17 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Andrey Maslennikov from comment #15)
> Spec URL:
> https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/
> 47cc17411155ed5d7af6827af8feb2e238a2fc9a/ucx.spec

A few comments on the spec file:

> %{!?configure_options: %global configure_options %{nil}}

How do you intend to use this? It will always be nil when the package is built
in the Fedora build system.

> Group: System Environment/Libraries
> [...]
> BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)

"Group:" and "BuildRoot:" SHOULD NOT be used according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

"SHOULD NOT" is not as strong as "MUST NOT", but sharing the same spec file
between Fedora and SLES does not seem like a worthwhile goal in the long run.
IMO it's not a valid reason for having these tags.

> BuildRequires: automake autoconf libtool

It seems you're only running ./configure in the %build step, not regenerating
it. Does the build really require autotools?

> the following shared memory mechanisms: posix. sysv, cma, knem, xpmem.
Typo. This period should be a comma -----------^

> %package static

The packaging guidelines say: "In general, packagers are strongly encouraged
not to ship static libs unless a compelling reason exists."
So a comment stating a reason for including the static libs would be nice.

> make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1

Just a minor suggestion: We have a macro called "make_build", defined as:
%{__make} -O %{?_smp_mflags}
It would be nice to use that macro:
%make_build V=1

> make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install

There is a macro for this as well: %make_install

> %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}

Is this to make the spec file work in older distros?

Other:
"[...] you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang"
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires

Please insert empty lines between %changelog entries.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux