Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 202004
| Summary: | Review Request: brandy | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Paul F. Johnson <paul> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | j |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-08-17 22:32:44 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||
|
Description
Paul F. Johnson
2006-08-10 10:33:47 UTC
This package looks good and builds and runs fine, but you seem to leave out the documentation and the examples, save for COPYING and READ.ME. It looks liks stuff manually copied into _docdir doesn't get added to the package, yet you can't manually list _docdir in %files. Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/brandy.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/brandy-1.0.19-2.src.rpm Fixes docdir problem and examples problem Finally my mirror is updated and I can build again.
This still builds fine and indeed all of the documentation and examples are
there. However, there are a couple of issues:
Proper flags are not pased to the compiler. I use this hack at the end of %prep
to get them passed properly; the resulting package still seems to work correctly:
perl -pi -e "s/^(CFLAGS.*=.*)/\1 %{optflags}/" makefile
I wonder if the examples would be more proper as documentation. This would be
more in line with what I've seen in the past, but I don't think it's a blocker.
* source files match upstream:
0aedef51e76cf07533d82fe4dcd89efa brandy_119.tgz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none!)
X compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete (even though the compiler flags are wrong, -g
is still passed)
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
brandy = 1.0.19-2.fc6
=
(no non-glibc or rpm dependencies)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Manual testing shows that
things at least install and run. (My BASIC is not the best after a couple of
decades of disuse.)
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/brandy.spec Updated the spec file (the src.rpm is the same) Adds in the perl hack. Looks good to me. The CFLAGS hack is kind of nasty but to my eyes it produces a proper set of flags and the resulting package is fine. I'm going to go ahead and approve this; I didn't get much guidance on the subject of whether the examples should be included as %doc (instead of living in %_datadir) so I'm not going to block on it. APPROVED Is there a justification for examples in %{_datadir}? I see that you're even
copying them yourself....
Where would be a better place that in %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/examples?
Why not:: %doc examples |