[Bug 247200] Review Request: wulfware - A LAN/cluster/beowulf monitoring toolset

[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: wulfware - A LAN/cluster/beowulf monitoring toolset


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247200


jpmahowald at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jpmahowald at gmail.com
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com  2007-09-03 18:09 EST -------
I am using the spec file in the srpm at
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/wulfware/wulfware-2.5.1-0.src.rpm

Build fails in mock:

+ ./autogen.sh
./autogen.sh: line 8: autoheader: command not found
./autogen.sh: line 9: aclocal: command not found
./autogen.sh: line 12: automake: command not found
./autogen.sh: line 13: autoconf: command not found

You will need to BuildRequires these

rpmlint -i on the srpm, (edited with my comments):

E: wulfware no-description-tag
There is no %description tag in your spec file. To insert it, just insert a
'%description' tag in your spec file, add a textual description of the package
after it, and rebuild the package.

W: wulfware invalid-license Open Source
The value of the License tag was not recognized. 

See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing for how to specify GPL versions

W: wulfware hardcoded-packager-tag rgb at phy.duke.edu
The Packager tag is hardcoded in your spec file. It should be removed, so
as to use rebuilder's own defaults.

W: wulfware unversioned-explicit-provides libwulf.so
The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all
older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing.  This may cause
update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts
on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible.

(Actually drop this provides entirely, rpm figures these provides out)

W: wulfware rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure
--prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it
will break short circuiting.

E: wulfware configure-without-libdir-spec
A configure script is run without specifying the libdir. configure
options must be augmented with something like --libdir=%{_libdir}.

(You probably want the %configure macro)

E: wulfware hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib,
/usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

E: wulfware hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libwulf.so
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib,
/usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

E: wulfware hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libwulf.so.%{version}
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib,
/usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.


You also need to use macros for bindir, mandir etc. instead of /usr/share
/usr/bin etc.

The Source needs to be a URL, or have a comment on how to generate it

Don't define version or release macros, the tags to it for you.

What is the purpose of %define _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0  ?

Why is there symlinking done in post and postun scripts? %install would be a
better place. Be sure this uses macros as described earlier.



For your Fedora Core comment, drop the Core, Core is merged for Fedora 7+



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.