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: libxml2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226079 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-30 22:32 EST ------- Looks like someone needs to moderate here. First off, I'd hope that nobody gets nasty regardless of how dogmatic people are being. Please keep in mind at all times that rpmlint is a tool, not any authoritative source of packaging knowledge. It can be quite dumb and its results always need to be filtered by a human. Now, when dealing with rpmlint output, it's always nice to have the actual output somewhere in the ticket so we can see just what's being complained about. I think it's this: libxml2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libxml2-2.6.32/ChangeLog.gz libxml2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libxml2-2.6.32/NEWS The issues seem to reside solely with people's names. Isn't it anyone's priority that the contributors' names at least render properly somewhere? Here are the other two utf8-related complaints, which I don't think are at issue here; the C source is purposefully not utf8 anyway. libxml2-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libxml2-devel-2.6.32/examples/testWriter.c libxml2-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libxml2-devel-2.6.32/examples/writer.xml In any case, hopefully some useful discussion will result from this fedora-packaging post: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-May/msg00070.html And regardless, this ticket should certainly stay open, because nobody's done a full review yet. I built current CVS and found a few more issues: /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/libxml2mod.a (from libxml2-python) seems to be spurious; I don't think that's useful for anything at all. The -devel package seems to have a dependency on /usr/bin/python solely because of the executable documentation. rpmlint will complain about executable documentation: libxml2-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/libxml2-devel-2.6.32/examples/index.py libxml2-devel.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libxml2-devel-2.6.32/examples/index.py /usr/bin/python (repeat many times) which isn't really an issue unless it causes unwanted dependencies. I don't know if the dependency is problematic in this case; I'm not sure if the -python package was split up in an attempt to reduce dependencies or not, but I'm pretty sure this is a non-issue. If the main package had grown a python dependency then I'd see that as a problem. Looks like there's a typo in some of the recent changelog entries: libxml2.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.6.31-3.fc10 2.6.32-3.fc10 The only other rpmlint complaint is: libxml2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation which is obviously not a problem. Outside of rpmlint, I glanced at the specfile and noted a couple of additional issues. The general prohibition on the %makeinstall macro forces me to ask if a regular "make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}" will work for this package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used Finally, I know this is pretty trivial, but because it makes the specfile a bit more readable, please choose either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} and use it consistently. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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