https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991639
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> ---
Confirmed. Macro-madness is not a blocker according to the guidelines, but all
those macros will cause you some headaches eventually. I won't approve a
package that redefines several implicitly defined macros. Examples:
%define version 0.1.2
The "Version" tag already defines %{version}, so replace
Version: %{version}
with
Version: 0.1.2
and you can use %{version} anywhere you like.
%define release 1
This is wrong and misleading. Here you assign the value 1 to %release, but
further down in the spec you do
Release: %{release}%{?dist}
which defines %{release} to this new value. The old definition is lost.
Mass-rebuild scripts also will have a lot of fun trying to figure out whether
to modify (= "bump") the Release tag or the definition of "release".
Please
don't make it so complicated.
Url: %{url}
"URL:
http://efigue.foss.free.fr" and you're done. Well, you reuse %{url}
for
the Source0 tag, but hey, the "URL" tag defines %{url}, too. This is not an
obfuscation contest, but a rather simple package which should come with a
rather simple and readable spec file.
%define name python-facct
Again, the "Name" tag defines %{name}. There is really no need to redefine
these macros at the top of the spec file, becoming a crowded place, and you
would need to scroll back'n'forth to locate where and how those macros are used
throughout the spec file.
* Run rpmlint (or rpmlint -I for more helpful output) on the src.rpm and all
built rpms. Feel free to ignore obvious false positives in the report, but fix
anything else. Preferably add a comment here about whether/when you think what
rpmlint reports is correct or incorrect.
$ rpmlint python-facct-0.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
python-facct.src: W: file-size-mismatch facct-0.1.2.tar.gz = 316035,
http://efigue.foss.free.fr/facct-0.1.2.tar.gz = 316042
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
%files -f %{_tmppath}/INSTALLED_FILES
%files -f %{srcname}.lang
This is severely flawed. Just query the package contents to verify what is
included currently:
$ rpmls -p python-facct-0.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm|grep ^d
drwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/facct-0.1.2-py2.7.egg-info
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/python-facct-0.1.2
Directories are missing!
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
There are also duplicate files in both packages, e.g.:
$ rpmls -p python3-facct-0.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm | grep locale
-rw-r--r--
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/facct/locale/fr_FR/LC_MESSAGES/facct.mo
-rw-r--r--
/usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/facct/locale/fr_FR/LC_MESSAGES/facct.mo
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplicate_Files
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wg70mjzYUM&a=cc_unsubscribe