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 215445
Summary: | Review Request: netcdf-decoder Converts WMO GRIB products into NetCDF files | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Orion Poplawski <orion> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jochen Schmitt <jochen> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-01-29 18:01:19 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: | 215444 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Orion Poplawski
2006-11-13 23:46:30 UTC
God: + Rpmlint doesn't complaints source package. + Local build works fine. + rpmlint doesn't complaints binary package. + Mock build works fine. + Tarbar in source RPM matches with upstream. + RPM contains verbatin copy of the license text. + License text seem to be ok for free software Bad: - Can't install becouse perlNetCDF) is required. > Bad: > - Can't install becouse perlNetCDF) is required. perl(NetCDF) is under review in bug 215444, which this depends on. Thanks! Jochen - do you still want to review? perl(NetCDF) is now available. Good: + Tarball in source RPM match with upstream. + rpmlint is quite on source rpm. + Local build works fine. + rpmlint is quite on binary rpm. + Local install and uninstalling works fine. Bad: - The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) Sorry, I have to interupt, becouse I have a install problem with mock on my new machine. (In reply to comment #4) > Bad: > - The %makeinstall macro should not be used > (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) The makefiles do not support DESTDIR, and I really don't want to patch them to do so. I will cite: Why the %makeinstall macro should not be used Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} will work. %makeinstall is a kludge that can work with Makefiles that don't make use of the DESTDIR variable but it has the following potential issues: * %makeinstall overrides a set of environment variables during "make install". I.e. it performs make prefix="..." includedir="..." ... * It is error prone, and can have unexpected effects when run against less than perfect Makefiles. * It can trigger unnecessary rebuilds when executing "make install" * If a package contains libtool archives, it can cause broken *.la files to be installed. Instead, Fedora packages should use: make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install or make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install Thsi is a list of reasons why %Makeinstall should not used. Sory for any inconviniences. At last I have a positiv message for you. I have solve my moch issue and can report a positve build of your package on mock. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt (In reply to comment #6) > I will cite: > > Why the %makeinstall macro should not be used > > Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when make > install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} will work. ^^^^^^^^^ And I say again, DESTDIR does NOT work with this package, and %makeinstall does. If someone can show me a clean way to add DESTDIR support, that would be nice. But the configure system used in this package is very outdated and I don't think it's work spending time on it when a reasonable work around is available. Sorry, You are right. I wil APPROVE you package. Thanks. Checked it and built. Added to owners.list. Requesting branches... |