pvm packaging guidelines violations?

[Susi Lehtola]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 11:45:11 -0500
Richard Shaw <hobbes1069 at gmail.com> wrote:
> First let me say that if anyone wants to be the primary maintainer of pvm
> please step up! I only need it as a dependency.
> 
> While fixing the build for rawhide due to a tcl/tk update I had to look at
> the spec file and it was horrifying (ok, I'm exaggerating a bit).
> 
> The sources are extracted directly into the buildroot and then built in
> place. Also, it is "installed" (if you can call it that) into /usr/share
> even though it includes static libraries and binaries (which are later
> symlinked into /usr/bin)
> 
> So questions:
> 
> 1. Is this even legal?

No.

Looking through the older branches, I can see that the same way has
been in use in Fedora 7... And I'd be tempted to say that this
originates from pre-2000.

So a *major* rewrite of the spec file is in order. [To fix things one
might also have to fix the upstream build scripts. I'm guessing they're
the root cause here.]

> 2. Should this package go through a re-review?

Not according to the policy, no.

The package has been in Fedora the whole time, and the maintainers are
supposed to keep the spec files up-to-date with Fedora policies.

Since the spec file is breaking the packaging guidelines pretty
heavily, IIRC according to policy all provenpackagers are allowed to
step in and fix the issues.

> 3. Can the install location  be changed at this point? Other distros seem
> to install into /usr/lib{,64} and symlink the binaries from there.

I think so.

> There are also a large number of patches, some of which for secondary
> arches so I don't think I'm the right person to lead the charge here....
> Any volunteers?

But these shouldn't matter..
-- 
Susi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola at fedoraproject.org