New PuTTY 0.54-0.3 rpms for review.

[Gavin Henry]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 22 February 2004 01:13, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Gavin Henry wrote:
> > Dag Wieers if you have a second, could you look these over? Or anyone
> > else :-)
> >
> > http://www.suretecsystems.com/putty/putty.spec
>
> Obviously what I would do is already in my SPEC file. Let me tell you why
> I do some things differently.
>
>
> First of all you seem to want to format everything the way you do. And it
> looks pretty nice, but I don't think it is very useful. Aligning ':' is a
> nobel thing but apart from being very time consuming it doesn't gain you
> anything. And I even think it is more difficult to read. (Does vi even
> color-highlight this correctly ??)

Yeah, looking at it again, it really has no benefit and takes too long to do.

>
> Formatting however is mostly a personal preference anyway.
>
>
> Then putting a line between sections is something that fedora.us thought
> was a very good idea (no arguing about it back then!) and after a few
> months abandoned unanimously...
>
>
> Adding a BuildRequirement for desktop-file-utils makes sense if you're
> limiting yourself to distributions that have it. RHEL2.1 doesn't and is
> supported until 2006 IIRC. Perl for me belongs to the standard build
> environment and therefor doesn't need mentioning.

I do like the way you have done it, rather than have another file in the src 
rpm, make the desktop in the specfile, keeps it all together.

>
>
> You seem to 'quiet' the %setup output, which is something I _want_ to have
> in my buildlogs. If people are building my source-package I want them to
> be able to even compare the content of a tarball. It also helps to
> identify extra documentation or other files after inspection a buildlog
> when you go over your buildlog one last time. (part of the methodology, in
> the end this saves a lot of time as you don't have to re-release a package
> because you omitted something by mistake)

I never paid attention to the -q part, thanks for this tid bit. :-)


>
>
> You've put my perl one-liner on one-line ;)) But you're doing 3
> substitutions in one go and it becomes less obvious what you're doing if
> you make it unreadable this way.
>
> eg.
> 	%{__perl} -pi -e '
> s,-O2,$RPM_OPT_FLAGS,g;s,/usr/local,%{_prefix},g;s,^(\t\$\(INSTALL_DATA\)
> -m 644 ps.+)$, ,' unix/Makefile.gtk
>
> vs.
> 	%{__perl} -pi.orig -e '
> 	                s|-O2|%{optflags}|g;
> 	                s|/usr/local|%{_prefix}|g;
> 	                s|^(\t\$\(INSTALL_DATA\) -m 644 ps.+)$|#$1|;
> 	        ' unix/Makefile.gtk
>
> Simplicity comes first, readability second. Putting a perl one-liner on a
> single line you're not making this more simple, but sure less readable.

Agreed.

> (Remember that when it gets fixed upstream you should verify that it can
> be removed, if it takes you 1 minute to understand what it did...)

Understood.

>
>
> Some of the stuff was already mentioned. You're not using
> %{_datadir}/applications, you're adding yet another vendor.

Yeah, I will take Michel's advise on board as well. Nice learning curve for 
me :-) But its the only way to learn.

>
>
> I would add the desktop-file inline so that it is one less extra source
> which greatly enhances your ability to have a clear overview of
> everything. In your case to evaluate the package you need to look at at
> least another file.

I now agree.

>
>
> I also noticed you're repeating the package-name in your description, eg.
>
> 	Summary: PuTTY - A Free Telnet/SSH Client, plus utilities
>
> There's no added value by doing so. What's even more people don't know
> exactly what to expect. If you have alternative software packaged, the
> summary should indicate what the difference is.
>
> Look at:
>
> 	openssh - The OpenSSH implementation of SSH protocol versions 1 and 2.
> 	telnet - The client program for the telnet remote login protocol.
> 	putty - GUI SSH, Telnet and Rlogin client.
> 	rsh - Clients for remote access (rsh, rlogin, rcp).
>
> At least you can tell from the summary putty is a GUI program, which is
> essential information for someone who needs to choose. I also try to avoid
> using GNOME/GTK/KDE directly as it shouldn't matter to the end-user.

Point taken..

>
> I also end a summary with a dot, which is often done by Red Hat too. Once
> again it may be a personal preference.

Ok.

>
>
> Also you're using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead of %{buildroot} and although
> there's no real difference, you're mostly using macros everywhere else.
> This has been discussed at fedora.us also and I'm not sure if they have a
> valid reason to use a shell variable instead of the macro. (I know jbj
> made a statement about it and I don't think it adds to the equation)
>
> To me (personally) the macro fits better and makes it easier for the eyes.
> (FOR THE SAME PEOPLE THINK THAT I'M NOW SHOUTING AND IT HURTS THE EYES ;-)

I have just been following the fedora.us site for all this info. I forgot to 
check the fedora.redhat developer guide, which has an rpm section and 
basically does it how you do it. So I think I will give that a good read 
over.

>
>
> Well, those are my suggestions and some go directly against fedora.us
> guidelines. So be it.

:-)

Lastly, I would really like to thank you for your time. It is much 
appreciated. Oh, how do you find the time to do all those rpms anyway? Have 
you a shell script to do it like on rpmpan??

Hopefully this thread will help others out, and I won't feel like I have been 
making a fool of myself :)

Cheers again Dag.

My next tasks are reading more docs, updating these and I want to do OTRS (I 
have one rough one done) and Mamboserver.

Look out for more rubbish specfiles :-)

- -- 
Kind Regards,

Gavin Henry.
Director.

Open Source. Open Solutions.
http://www.suretecsystems.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFAOOuueWseh9tzvqgRAlqDAJwLL4D37ewU08XRcHwDaPglehda4QCXae6t
C7qE6AfkcmFzwYj6w4HiHQ==
=WqDy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----