[Bug 442507] Review Request: libspe2 - SPE Runtime Management Library

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: libspe2 - SPE Runtime Management Library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442507





------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de  2008-05-29 18:28 EST -------
I never did a full review, but rpmlint isn't silent for me here and I got many
packages reviewed until now, so let's try to fix the main things first.

libspe2.src:30: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib
-> %_libdir redefined

libspe2.src:107: W: setup-not-quiet
- Replace "%setup" by "%setup -q"

libspe2.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 151, tab: line 127)
-> Yeah, don't mix spaces and tabs inside of the spec file ;-)

libspe2.src: W: non-standard-group Cell Development Libraries
-> Please choose a valid group from  /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS, I think for
the library packages, "System Environment/Libraries" should maybe fit and for
packages with header and development files, maybe "Development/Libraries", just
have a look to the list yourself.

libspe2.src: W: invalid-license LGPL
-> Please be more precise and select a valid license tag from the wiki list 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

libspe2.src: E: unknown-key GPG#77550217
-> Did you put a key somewhere into the package?!

libspe2.src: W: strange-permission libspe2-2.2.0-91.tar.gz 0600
libspe2.src: W: strange-permission libspe2.spec 0600
-> chmod 644 to both files before executing rpmbuild

Aside of rpmlint:
- Please kill/remove the vendor tag, Fedora inserts it's own
- Set buildroot tag to something valid from the Packaging Guidelines
- Kill/remove the distribution tag, not needed/wished in Fedora
- Don't do things like "%define _libdir /usr/lib", this is all already in the 
  rpm-redhat-config rpm package
- Change "Requires: %{name} = %{version}" to "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-
  %{release}"
- Don't abuse release tag as mentioned in comment #4
- Does %WITH_WRAPPER really make sense? For Fedora you can't define such 
  switches directly as you never can't call rpmbuild directly, maybe decide for
  one flavor or build both in parallel, if they can co-exist?!
- Don't define %{_initdir} and friends, already in rpm-redhat-config rpm package
- What is %_adabindingdir and %_includedir2? They don't look LSB conform, 
  includes have to go into %{_includedir} or in a subdirectory, not directly 
  into /usr/somewhere
- Please remove %_unpackaged_files_terminate_build - remove unneeded files or
  use the %exclude macro
- Initscript should contain maybe an LSB/upstart compatible header section as
  well - at least it would be nice for the future.
- Is it necessary do enable the initscript/service per default?
- Does the initscript really show [  OK  ] and [FAILED]? I don't think so...
- Please use %doc e.g. for README, COPYING, LICENSE or whatelse exists
- Eliminate %set_optflags macro usage, just use OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" at the 
  make command itself, %optflags also knows how to handle noarch packages
- I can't see any build requires. Please note, the package has to rebuild
  successfully in mock (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Mock) of Fedora
  so you have to list all main dependencies to build the package
- Don't ship static libs, please (no *.a)

P.S.: I had a talk with Jochen, I thought he wrote a more sane spec file - can
we maybe see that one and maybe review his one, as Jochen told me that he tried
to follow the guidelines of Fedora already more than the current SRPM is doing.

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.