[Bug 225791] Merge Review: gettext

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 12 06:25:08 UTC 2007


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gettext


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225791





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2007-03-12 02:25 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=149807)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149807&action=view)
rpmlint log for gettext 0.16.1-5 on FC-devel i386

Well, for 0.16.1-5:
Some cleanup seems to be needed.

A spec file
* Summary:
  - Please don't end with dots.

* Prereq
  - Deprecated. Use Requires(post) and Requires(preun)

* Source2
  - SOURCE files should not have executable permission.

? BuildRoot tag
  - This BuildRoot does not meet current Fedora policy.

* Parallel make
  - Please check if parallel make is possible.

* %{makeinstall} macro
  - Avoid this if possible.

* Timestamps
---------------------------------------------
install -m 755 %SOURCE2 ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_bindir}/msghack
---------------------------------------------
  - Change to "install -p -m 755'. This is a script is keeping timestamp
    is recommended.
  - Well, perhaps also for this package
---------------------------------------------
make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" .....
---------------------------------------------
    works well to keep timestamps on some files.

* gettext mo files
---------------------------------------------
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/trans.list
pushd %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/locale
for foo in `find . -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 -type d` ; do
  lang=`echo $foo | cut -c 3-`
  echo "%lang($lang) %{_datadir}/locale/$foo/*/*" >> \
    $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/trans.list
done
popd
---------------------------------------------
  Cannot this be treated by %find_lang macro?

* One line command in %postun etc...
  - Please use "-p" option.

B. File check
  - Directory ownership issue
----------------------------------------------
[tasaka1 at localhost gettext]$ ( for f in `rpm -ql gettext gettext-devel | sort`
; do if [ -d $f ] ; then for g in `rpm -qf $f` ; do echo -e "$f\t$g" ; done ;
fi ; done ) | sed -e '/^[^ \t][^ \t]*\tgettext.*/d' 
/usr/share/locale/en at boldquot	filesystem-2.4.2-1.fc7
/usr/share/locale/en at boldquot/LC_MESSAGES	filesystem-2.4.2-1.fc7
/usr/share/locale/en at quot	filesystem-2.4.2-1.fc7
/usr/share/locale/en at quot/LC_MESSAGES	filesystem-2.4.2-1.fc7
----------------------------------------------
   - Static archive
     * Would you explain why static archive is needed, or just split
       these to -static subpackage?

C. rpmlint issue
   ------ This is attached --------
   NOTES:
   - Please use %% in %changelog for macros.
   - Would you explain if the status of
---------------------------------------------
     unversioned-explicit-provides devel(libintl)
---------------------------------------------
     is proper (and why this is required)?
   - Would you explain the status of /usr/lib/preloadable_libintl.so?
     * Currently this has 0644 permission
     * This is not stripped, debuginfo rpm does not contain the debug
       information for this file.
   - There are many 'spurious-executable-perm' complaint.
   - And somes are 'wrong-script-interpreter'
   - Check if some zero-length files are needed.

D. NOTES:
   - /usr/share/aclocal is not owned by this package and
     -devel package has some files under this directory.

     Generally this status is not allowed, however, it is still under
     discussion about
     * should all packages which have some files under /usr/share/aclocal
       require "automake" to satisfy the directory ownership requirement?
     * or should all packages own this directory?
     * or should filesystem  own this directory? 
     So for now I leave this at it is.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the package-review mailing list