[Bug 550582] Review Request: dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian Linux

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550582

Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |oget.fedora at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |oget.fedora at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #10 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> 2010-01-22 17:49:44 EST ---
Here is the full review for this:

? rpmlint says:
   dselect.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Do those files have to be in libdir? Please change or defend.

* The patch makes references to /usr/lib which is not the right path for
x86_64. Why does sed break stuff again?

* dev package must be renamed to devel

* Please don't duplicate the same doc files in the devel and dselect packages

* Please go through the source and make sure you tag all licenses correctly. As
far as I can tell most of the source code is GPLv2+. However there are some
exceptions, such as 
   lib/dpkg/md5.c is public domain
   lib/dpkg/showpkg.c is GPLv2
   etc
These have to be listed as comments in the SPEC file.

* Source0 seems to be wrong. Gives 404 to me.

* Please update to the latest upstream

? Shouldn't the dselect package require the main package?

? Why are we removing the alternatives stuff?

* A few directories are owned by both the main package and the devel package.
Since the devel package requires the main package, please get rid of the
multiple ownership. Also one directory is also owned by the dselect package. If
dselect package does not need to require the main package, this is OK.

* /usr/sbin/install-info seems dangerous. Please move somewhere else.

- At a few places in the build I see the -O1 flag overriding our default flag.
This -O1 is passed during the linking phase only. I don't think this is a
problem. It is weird though.

* I can't install the devel package:
  $ sudo rpm -ivh dpkg-dev-1.15.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
  error: Failed dependencies:
        perl(extra) is needed by dpkg-dev-1.15.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64
  $ sudo yum install "perl(extra)"
  ...
  No package perl(extra) available.

-- 
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.