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: boost
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622
pertusus(a)free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pertusus(a)free.fr
------- Additional Comments From pertusus(a)free.fr 2007-02-17 17:53 EST -------
The package should be adjusted to adhere to the fedora packaging
guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
for the merge of fedora Core and fedora Extras.
Issues:
* the Source should lead to a real url
* BuildRoot is not the preferred one
* PreReq should be replaced by the appropriate Requires(post)....
In the case of boost, an even better solution would be to use
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
* BuildRequires of libs shouldn't be necessary, they are brought in by
the -devel, so the following should be removed:
BuildRequires: python
BuildRequires: bzip2-libs
BuildRequires: zlib
BuildRequires: libicu
* there shouldn't be a mail sent for the test results in the default
case. If you really want it, I think you should consider using a
conditional.
* Boost Software License seems to me to be very similar with the MIT
license. Maybe MIT-like could be used?
* in the %doc of the main package there should certainly be LICENSE_1_0.txt
README, and many html files from the source directory, for example the
faq, but also many others.
* why don't you use bjam for installing?
* in the doc subpackage the directory should be tagged with %doc.
* what you do with soname is dubious. Why don't you use the upstream
numbering?
* the %optflags are not used during the build.
* It is not very clear to me whether the devel package requires zlib-devel,
bzip2-devel, and so on, or not.
* there is a very strange
Obsoletes: boost-doc <= 1.30.2
* the main package should certainly
Provides: boost-python = %{version}-%{release}
* rpmlint shows that
- there are bad perms for static libs, they should be 0644
- some source files have bad perms, they shouldn't be executables
- there are some scripts mixed with the headers, that were certainly
used during build, they should be removed.
and
W: boost macro-in-%changelog check
W: boost rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
E: boost no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
There are also many undefined-non-weak-symbol
W: boost undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libboost_python.so.1.33.1
PyExc_ImportError
for libboost_python, the python library should certainly be used during
the link of that library.
* the static libraries should certainly be moved to another
subpackage like boost-static or boost-devel-static or something
similar
* mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}
is unuseful
* add dots in %description
* -doc should be in Group Documentation (although Group doesn't matter much)
and -devel in Development/Libraries
* it seems to me that -doc shouldn't require the main package.
* you should keep the timestamps for doc and headers by using -p
Suggestions:
* add / in %files to directory, to show visually that these are directories
and not files
* use %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root, root)
* put the html doc in the -doc subbpackage docdir and not in the main
package docdir, using %doc
--
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.