Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-kde (297 mails)

[todd rme <toddrme2178@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Raymond Wooninck <tittiatcoke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> Let me try to answer some of your questions.

What about 1?  It seems that these packages could be arranged better.

> > 2. "shlib-policy-missing-suffix: Your package containing shared
> > libraries does not end in a digit and should probably be split." This
>
> There have been quite some discussions around this particular topic
> and the answer has always been that packages belonging to KDE or to
> GNOME are not always following the guidelines given by rpmlint. The
> desktop packages have been packaged in a logical way and this is not
> always inline with rpmlint. As you said already a good example is
> bluedevil. There is already a package libbluedevil that provides the
> core libraries. What would be the reason to start splitting out the
> package bluedevil itself and to start providing a new rpm which is
> called bluedevil-libs. This would create much more confusion, then
> just this simple rpmlint error.
>
> My comment would be here to ignore this warning when it comes to
> bigger desktop packages.

Alright, I'll ignore it when I think, and ask on this mailing list
when I think there might be a good reason to change it.

> > 3. "shlib-policy-missing-lib: Your package starts with 'lib' as part
>
> As indicated above, just ignore this warning. Renaming packages would
> create a big confusion and would eventually end up with more issues
> than just this trivial warning.

The only place I can recall this one being an issue is libdmtx.  I
will investigate this more and provide more information when I have a
better idea (I won't do anything until 4.7 is published at the
earliest).

> > 4. "devel-file-in-non-devel-package (Badness: 50)"  These appear when
>
> It completely depends on what files are indicated here. For KDE we
> have also *.so files in the /usr/lib64/kde4 directory and these are
> NOT development files. These are library modules required by the KDE
> desktop. And I am sure that there are plenty more of these type of
> files.

Then rpmlint should probably be fixed to not include these.

> > 5. "package-with-huge-docs  x%: More than half the size of your
>
> The create of a separate rpm on itself is not bad especially when the
> doc-package would be optional and therefore could save diskspace for
> the user.

Will do.

> > 6. "explicit-lib-dependency: You must let rpm find the library
>
> Most of the time these requires are there to explicitly request for a
> specific version of that package. It is sometimes not enough to have
> rpm resolve the dependency itself as that an older version of the
> package might also satisfy the dependencies, but the newer version is
> required.

That's what I thought.

> > 7. Obsoletion of KDE 3.5.1.  A lot of packages obsolete KDE 3.5.1.  Is
>
> I guess that currently we can remove a lot of obsolete and provides. I
> don't think that we have any user that is still running with packages
> with the prefix kde4. Also with KDE 3.x still existing, I believe that
> we should make it possible to have both installed at the same.

Alright.  That being said, the current setup only obsolete KDE 3.5.1,
which is not available in the repos, so it doesn't prevent the
installation of KDE 3.5, but on the other hand it doesn't actually do
anything whatsoever.

> > 8. "non-executable-script: This text file contains a shebang or is
>
> This should be validated case by case. Not in all-cases the text file
> should be made executable as that this could cause security issues,
> etc.

I'll compile a list and post it here, then.

> > A special case: akonadi obsoletes itself, since it used to follow the
> I would remove the obsoletes/provides here as that I don't believe
> that anybody is still running an older version.

Okay.

-Todd
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx