[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Apr 15 00:06:34 UTC 2006

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: elektra


------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2006-04-14 20:06 EST -------
(In reply to comment #9)

> > * DTDVERSION isn't usefull
> Its being used in a %post script. Kept.

It is used only once, so it is better to replace by the

> > * You don't use macros like %{_bindir} and the like. This is mandatory
> Thats because for correct usage of this package, it is mandatory to install
> files in /bin and /lib (and not /usr/bin and /usr/lib) and according to
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/RPMMacros there are no macros that satisfy
> this. Any other places that macros are available, they are being used.

Ok. But %{_lib} should be used too, it is lib64 sometimes,
so /lib should be replaced by /%{_lib}

Also the macros should be used in %install too.

> > * the %clean section is wrong
> Fixed.

No, the following line should be uncommented:
> > * %deffatr is not standard
> I think it is fixed. Documentation isn't clear about the standard way of using
> it.

It is indeed fixed. 

> > * the devel and main package aren't set up how they should be.
> Not sure what you mean. They look good for me.

the .so files should be in the devel package. It is usual to have,
in the main package something like
and in -devel:

Same for /lib/*berkeleydb.so*
Then devel should 
Requires:     elektra-backend-berkeleydb = %{version}-%{release}

> > * Why not use %configure?
> Because of the same reason %{_bindir} is not being used. Red Hat's %configure
> forces a /usr/bin and /usr/lib, which is wrong for this package.

Couldn't it be possible to use
and override the default flags by adding them in the end?
Otherwise you'll have to set CFLAGS to $RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
> We don't have a smaller changelog because we are building RPMs since the
> beginning. The packaging is tightly integrated to the build system and the
> changelog is automatically being appended to the specfile. Can we just leave a
> better, more complete changelog this way ?

No. It is much too verbose. Leave only the packaging infos, not
everything. Sometime little is better...

* The Version is wrong, should be 0.6. The Source may be then

* libtool and gettext-devel are certainly not needed.

* ldconfig call is needed for backend-berkeleydb too

* rpmlint reports (among others)
E: elektra binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /bin/kdb ['//lib']

* the %post action should only be done for the first install?
In that case look at how to achieve that in scriptlet snippets.

* The paragraph that appear in the elektra main package description
shouldn't appear in the other subpackages summaries.

* It is only an advice, and not a blocker, but I prefer
  listing files in bindir using the full names and not 
  globs, such that it is easier to catch mistakes.

* Also not a blocker, but I believe it would be clearer 
to have 

* Some doc files are missing, like

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list