[Bug 466183] Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466183





--- Comment #3 from Matt Domsch <matt_domsch at dell.com>  2008-10-09 15:30:51 EDT ---
Emily, thank you for packaging this up.

> echo "%doc %{_datadir}/man/man1/*" >> _pkg_list

Please remove the %doc from this line.

> sed s?$RPM_BUILD_ROOT??g _pkg_list > _pkg_list_2
> mv -f _pkg_list_2 _pkg_list

You can use sed -i  (in place edit) to avoid the need to do the mv.

schema subpackage has only a single directory, no files in /usr/share/sfcb/CIM.
 Are these created at runtime or at install time?  If other packages will be
laying down files in there (and thus own them), that's fine, but then you
should use
%dir %{_datadir}/sfcb/CIM/
and the license on an empty directory is then the same as the main package.

bug: initscript is named 'sfcb' but chkconfig and service calls in %post use
sblim-sfcb.  Then you won't need the exit 0 line either.

Can you get sfcb to put its 19 dlopen()d libraries (plus their two symlinks
each, 57 files in total) into %{_libdir}/sblim-sfcb/* instead of %{_libdir},
drop a .conf file into /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ and remove the rpaths?  Would be
cleaner.

also, the .so name vs other names.  This is because support.c has:
void *loadLibib(const char *libname)
{
   char filename[255];
   sprintf(filename, "lib%s.so", libname);
   return dlopen(filename, RTLD_LAZY);
}

As these are private libraries included with the package, it would seem one
could use the .so.0 name instead of the .so name, and could eliminate the .so
symlink entirely (as you don't need it for a devel package, nothing links to
these).

-- 
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.