[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430





------- 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
value.

> > * 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:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 
> > * %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
/lib/*elektra-filesys.so.*
and in -devel:
/lib/*elektra-filesys.so

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
%configure
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
Source:       
http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/elektra/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

* 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 
%{_datadir}/sgml/elektra-0.1.1/

* Some doc files are missing, like
%docs AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README 

-- 
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.