From: Paul H. Hargrove (PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov)
Date: Tue Dec 16 2008 - 12:48:18 PST
Neal, As always, thanks for you advocacy efforts on behalf of BLCR. I don't have time right now to address the comments individually in e-mail. Nor am I likely to have time to make corresponding changes in 0.8.0 (which is already much later than I had hoped). However, I will be happy to work on addressing many or most of these in 0.8.1. As for the 32-bit stuff. The simplest thing for me to do would be to split the libs into 2 packages blcr-libs and blcr-libs-32bit. However, the comments appear to want a 64-bit platform not to *build* the 32-bit libraries, which might contrary to peoples expectations on non-Fedora platforms. I'll give a little bit of thought to this when I have more time. As always, I'll be happy to consider any contributed patches to the BLCR spec file. However, I would rather fork and maintain two spec files than have a single one that is overly specific to Fedora and useless, for instance, on SuSE. I might actually hit one or two of the most minor things (like the "#empty" file and packages missing docs) for 0.8.0, but only because they require little or no testing. -Paul Neal Becker wrote: > Review for inclusion into rpmfusion is _finally_ moving forward. I got these > comments. > > I'm not sure what do do about building 32-bit stuff on 64-bit arch. I think > the standard procedure is that default build on 64bit builds only 64bit, and > if you want 32 you ask for it, and get a different rpm (xxx.i386 vs > xxx.x86_64). > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Subject: [Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for > Linux > Date: Tuesday 16 December 2008 > From: RPM Fusion Bugzilla <noreply_at_rpmfusion_dot_org> > To: rpmfusion-package-review_at_rpmfusion_dot_org > > http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 > > > > > > --- Comment #10 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri_at_yahoo_dot_com> 2008-12-16 06:48:50 > --- > 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? > > -- Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov Future Technologies Group HPC Research Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900