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: bmpx - Beep Media Player eXperimental https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=370561 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-15 09:37 EST ------- Well, ! License is actually strict GPLv2. * First triggerscripts - Personally, I don't like triggerscripts. However, even if we ignore what I feel, current triggerscripts contains some problems. 1. /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.4.2.2/triggers says the order of the scriptlets when one package is upgrade is: -------------------------------------------------------- new-%pre for new version of package being installed ... (all new files are installed) new-%post for new version of package being installed any-%triggerin (%triggerin from other packages set off by new install) new-%triggerin old-%triggerun any-%triggerun (%triggerun from other packages set off by old uninstall) old-%preun for old version of package being removed ... (all old files are removed) old-%postun for old version of package being removed old-%triggerpostun any-%triggerpostun (%triggerpostun from other packages set off by old un install) -------------------------------------------------------- So, (if I understand this correctly) when firefox is upgraded, - First (any)-%triggerin of bmpx against "new firefox" is executed. When this %triggerin ends, the contents of %{_libdir}/%{name}/%{name}-plugin-path points to new firefox directory. - Next (any)-%triggerun of bmpx against "old firefox" is executed. At this stage, the files under the directory written in %{name}-plugin-path is removed, so as the result bmpx extension for "new" firefox is removed. ! By the way, if I am correct new install of bmpx should call %triggerin scripts of bmpx itself (new-%triggerin). 2. Usually these method leaves unowned files. -------------------------------------------------------- $ LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/lib/firefox-2.0.0.9/extensions/{bc3572da-daf9-435d-a8a6-33cc20fe4533} file /usr/lib/firefox-2.0.0.9/extensions/{bc3572da-daf9-435d-a8a6-33cc20fe4533} is not owned by any package -------------------------------------------------------- Moreover, %{_libdir}/%{name}/%{name}-plugin-path is not owned either. I think the proper way is to rebuild bmpx every time firefox is upgraded, or to separate firefox extension related files from bmpx (and submit a new review request for bmpx-mozextension, for example) if you don't want to rebuild whole bmpx. - For generic issues: * koji build - -2 does not build. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=236212 Note: basically, %_iconsdir is not defined. ---------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ grep iconsdir /etc/rpm/macros.* ......... /etc/rpm/macros.jpackage:%_iconsdir %{_datadir}/icons ......... [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ rpm -qf /etc/rpm/macros.jpackage jpackage-utils-1.7.3-1jpp.3.fc8 ---------------------------------------------------------- * Timestamps - Please use "-p" option when you use "cp" or "install" commands - Also, try to add 'INSTALL="install -p"' option to "make install" if this keeps timestamps on name png file, header files or so (I guess yes). * Exclude - It seems many .la files are installed under %_libdir/bmpx/plugins/taglib. Check if this is correct. ! Note: I prefer not to use %exclude but really to "remove" unneeded files by the time %install finishes. * %post scriptlet ---------------------------------------------------------- if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then update-desktop-database &>/dev/null || : fi ---------------------------------------------------------- - Perhaps this is some copy/paste mistake. * Files entry - Are Makefile.* under %_defaultdocdir really needed? * -devel package? - Well, why is this -devel package needed? bmpx does not contain any libraries in ldconfig default paths, and -devel package does not contain any symlinks for libraries. As far as I see this package, -devel package is completely unneeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review