[Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19





--- Comment #11 from Neal Becker <ndbecker2 at gmail.com>  2008-12-17 13:25:29 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> This package surely needs some work. To start with:
> 
> * mock build fails on my x86_64. This is because you are trying to build and
> include 32 bit libraries in a 64 bit package, which is not allowed. If one
> needs 32 bit libraries (s)he can install blcr-libs.i386 in addition to
> blcr_libs.x86_64 . So you should remove the "libdir32" bits from the SPEC file.
> 
> * Leave a comment in the SPEC file for why you are using ExclusiveArch.
> 
> * Try to avoid mixed ${ } %{_ } notation
> 
> * BR: "perl" and "sed" are not required since they are in the minimum build
> environment.
> 
> * Please remove the static library bits from the SPEC file.
> 
> * rpmlint complains:
>    blcr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
>    blcr-testsuite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
>    blcr-testsuite.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/blcr-testsuite/shellinit
> For the first two, at least put the license file(s) in those packages.
> The last one is actually about an empty files. Well it is not empty but when
> you open it, it says "#empty". Do you think we should include that file?
> 
> * Patches should be explained and be submitted to upstream if they are not
> strictly Fedora specific.
> 
> * The file tests/CountingApp.class is binary and should be removed during %prep
> 
> * The file README.devel is not and should be packaged.
> 
> * Buildroot should be one of these:
>    %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
>    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
>    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
> 
> * Why do you have:
>    # Ensure we don't build for a i386
>    %ifarch i386
>      set +x
>      echo
> "=========================================================================="
>      echo "ERROR: Cannot build BLCR for a generic i386." >&2
>      echo "ERROR: Add \"--target `uname -p`\" (or similar) to the rpmbuild
> command line." >&2
>      echo
> "=========================================================================="
>      exit 1
>    %endif
> in the SPEC file? Just remove i386 from ExclusiveArch and you should be fine.
> 
> * Please use
>   %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
>   %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
> Afaik, they'll work more efficient.
> 
> * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> 
> * Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section
> of Fedora Packaging Guidelines . Avoid inconsistencies such as:
>    %clean
>    rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
> 
>    %install
>    rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> 
> * Disttag is missing.
> 
> * The Fedora-specific compilation flag -fstack-protector is not passed to the
> compiler. For a list of flags that should be passed to the compiler, please do
> a
>    rpm --eval %optflags
> 
> * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported,
> this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment.
> 
> * Shall we package the examples, tests directories?
> 

Thank you.  I am working with upstream on these.

The 32bit is the most challenge.  I think what we want is that we wind up with
seperate 32bit and 64bit libs packages, blcr-libs.x86_64 and blcr-libs.i386. 
Consistent with other multi-arch packages, we want 32bit libs available on
64bit arch, but not installed by default.

What is the standard way to setup srpm to produce this result?


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.