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

Help on bug reports for gdal (bug 1964)


I announced gdal on fedora.us and last week I got some comments on
my package[1]. Some of them are quite clear and will be fixed when I
prepared my new package but I didn't understand all of them. Perhaps
you can comment on them:

> Minor: 
> * Permissions on files in *.src.rpm:
> W: gdal strange-permission gdal-1.2.1.tar.gz 0600
> W: gdal strange-permission gdal.spec 0664
> W: gdal strange-permission gdal-install.patch 0664

What are the permission supposed to be?

> * Poor quality of the configure script and makefile systems.
> Severe:
> * Package does not honor $RPM_OPT_FLAGS

Can you please give me a pointer where I find more information on
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS? I did have a look at
http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/developers-guide/ but couldn't
find anything.

> * Partially low coding quality:
> ...
> gdal_wrap.c:1136: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will
> break
> strict-aliasing rules
> gdal_wrap.c: In function `py_StringListToList':
> gdal_wrap.c:1205: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will
> break
> strict-aliasing rules
> gdal_wrap.c: In function `ptrptrset':
> [Dozens of similar warnings more.]
> As the package is reported to work on ia32, these warnings are
> unlikely to break
> the package, but they very likely cause the package to be
> non-functional with
> future GCCs and on other architectures.

OK. I will inform the upstream author of the package. Do you have
other suggestions what can be done regarding this issue?

> Critical:
> * The rpm does not build:
> ...
> RPM build errors:
>     File not found: /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/gdal-root/usr/lib/debug

> * Has "make %{?_smp_mflags}" instead of "make" been tried?

No it hasn't but I will add it to my specfile.

> * rpmlint is right about these two errors:
>   E: gdal configure-without-libdir-spec
>   E: gdal hardcoded-library-path in
> %{buildroot}/usr/lib/python%{PYTHON_VERSION}/site-packages
> * A lot of the explicit "Requires: proj, xerces-j, libjpeg,
> shapelib, libungif,
> zlib, libpng, postgresql-libs" ought to be dropped. Explicit
> dependencies on
> library package names ask for trouble. Most of the libraries surely
> are
> automatic dependencies already. Check output of "rpm --query
> --requires

OK. But how can I get the information about the package that has to
be installed to fulfill the various dependencies. This is the reason
why you must provide the names of all packages that have to be
installed when you prepare a debian package. In my opinion this is
also useful for an RPM based package. There shouldn't be trouble
with explicityl asking for a specific package since gdal is
explicitly build for Fedora. Thus all necessary packages should be
available and if there are two different packages that can fulfill
the dependencies I can specify both with '|'.  Of course if there is
an official policy or an agreement that explicit dependencies
shouldn't be used I will delete them.

A last issue: You mentioned to have used rpmlint on my package. So I
did this as well and got lots of new warnings and errors among them

E: gdal executable-in-library-package /usr/bin/gdalwarp
E: gdal non-versioned-file-in-library-package /usr/share/gdal/esri_extra.wkt
E: gdal non-versioned-file-in-library-package /usr/share/man/man1/ogrtindex.1.gz
W: gdal devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/_gdalmodule.a

rpmlint is right: These package should rather be in gdal-bin,
python-gdal etc. My question: How shall I define subpackage in the
specfile so that the package names will not be libgdal-bin but gdal-bin
etc. Is this possible? 

BTW: Is there a reason why rpmlint is not mentioned on
http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy? IMHO it helps
to avoid lots of problems when packaging. Thus the packages will
probably be of better quality when they  are announced on fedora.us.



[1] https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1964

Silke Reimer

Intevation GmbH                      http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS                                http://freegis.org/

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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