[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL

[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: CGAL


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168





------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de  2006-08-16 03:26 EST -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Actions(In reply to comment #7)
> > I must be missing something very basic:
> > 
> > # rpm -qlp CGAL-3.2.1-14.i386.rpm
> > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1
> > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE
> > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.FREE_USE
> > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.LGPL
> > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.QPL
> > /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/README.Fedora
> > 
> > This doesn't look like a reasonable packaging to me.
> > 
> > Also:
> > 
> > # rpmlint CGAL-*3.2.1-14.i386.rpm
> > E: CGAL devel-dependency CGAL-devel
> > E: CGAL no-binary
> > W: CGAL-devel no-dependency-on CGAL
> 
> CGAL is a meta-package that requires CGAL-libs, CGAL-devel, and CGAL-sources. 

Contradicts Fedora conventions and IMNSOH, is complete non-sense.
Consider this to be a MUST FIX.

Put the run-time libs into CGAL or CGAL-libs and the devel files into *-devel.

> > E: CGAL-devel file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/CGAL/make/makefile
> > E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh
> > E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh
> 
> As far as I know, these rpmlint errors should be ignored.
Nope, these scripts are incomplete. MUSTFIX

> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Further issues:
> > 
> > - The *-devel package ships /usr/include/CORE
> > IMO, this directory name is too general.
> 
> CGAL-3.2.1 ships CORE-1.7, http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/core_pages/intro.html
> This directory is from CORE.
And? This doesn't answer my remark.

> > - Static libs:
> > /usr/lib/libCGALQt.a
> > /usr/lib/libcore++.a
> 
> upstream libCGALQt is static only, as indicated in comment #1, as well as 
> upstream libcore++. I know that static libraries should be avoided "as far as 
> possible", in Fedora. Is the upstream devs choice a sufficient reason?
Formally not, but it's sufficient reason for me not to approve a package and to
classify a package's quality as "low" ;)

> > - A more general design problem:
> > Some headers in /usr/include/CGAL hard-code configuration-time detected
> > * system features, e.g. the version of zlib and Qt
> > 
> > * compiler characteristics, e.g. endianness.
> 
> Yes, it should only be /usr/include/CGAL/compiler_config.h. Is it a blocker?
Well, there actually are 2 issues with this.
- Package dependencies. You will have to find a way to handle the hard-coded
version dependencies in rpm.


- Hard-coding compiler characteristics is a common design flaw many packages
suffer from. This should not be much of a problem for current Fedora, but can
easily become one. In many cases, such stuff disqualfies a package from
inclusion in multilib'ed distros. This is an upstream problem, which probably
doesn't affect current Fedora.

[Wrt. endianness: Many people miss that endianness is a compiler feature.
Packages hard-coding endianness break on biendian targets, e.g. for multilib'ed
mips and sh distros]




-- 
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.