[Bug 732763] New: PCP packaging is broken
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c0 Summary: PCP packaging is broken Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE 12.1 Version: Final Platform: Other OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Other AssignedTo: ddiss@suse.com ReportedBy: ddiss@suse.com QAContact: qa@suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- As reported by Ken McDonell: The package names for the libraries have been changed from pcp-libs and pcp-libs-devel to libpcp3 and libpcp-devel respectively ... besides being internally inconsistent (should be libpcp3-devel me thinks), the more serious problems are A. whoever did this did not send the patches up stream to the PCP maintainers, and (more importantly) B. there are no apparent Obsoletes rules to deal with upgrades, so installing PCP 3.5.9 from oss.sgi.com source on top of PCP 3.5.8 from openSUSE leads to a botched install and parts of both 3.5.8 and 3.5.9 installed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c1
--- Comment #1 from David Disseldorp
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c2
--- Comment #2 from Bernhard Wiedemann
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c3
David Disseldorp
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c4
Benjamin Brunner
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c5
David Disseldorp
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c6
Benjamin Brunner
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c8
--- Comment #8 from David Disseldorp
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c9
David Disseldorp
Far to many macros IMO. You can check for % [+]suse_version instead of %_vendor (it's more common). Doing "rm -rf %buildroot" in the %install section is a no-go (even if useful for rpmbuild), you can use a fedora check around if you really need it. AFAICS, the ldconfig calls should be done for the lib package. Lastly, there are a lot of rpmlint warnings and even errors. Please fix at least the latter. Thanks!
I'll convert the %_vendor to %suse_version checks and remove the "rm -rf %buildroot". Regarding the complaint that there are too many macros, I'm firmly in favour of using macros rather than wrapping every use in %if (0%{?suse_version} > 0). The rpmlint errors are caused by the PMDA .h files packaged, and were also present in openSUSE 12.1. Quoting the explanation from RH: # Note: there are some headers (e.g. domain.h) and in a few cases some # C source files that rpmlint complains about. These are not devel files, # but rather they are (slightly obscure) PMDA config files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c10
--- Comment #10 from Sascha Peilicke
I'll convert the %_vendor to %suse_version checks and remove the "rm -rf %buildroot". Great.
Regarding the complaint that there are too many macros, I'm firmly in favour of using macros rather than wrapping every use in %if (0%{?suse_version} > 0). It was no complaint, rather a suggestion. I really don't see the need for several of them. AFAIR, Fedora uses SPDX style license strings too nowadays and why would RPM groups differ? Again, no hard issue, it just looks strange.
The rpmlint errors are caused by the PMDA .h files packaged, and were also present in openSUSE 12.1. Quoting the explanation from RH: # Note: there are some headers (e.g. domain.h) and in a few cases some # C source files that rpmlint complains about. These are not devel files, # but rather they are (slightly obscure) PMDA config files. But you could add a rpmlintrc with a proper comment to silence this one. This way, reviewers have at least a chance to rate this.
Runlevel 4 in init scripts or perl-base missing dep are also fixable... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c11
--- Comment #11 from David Disseldorp
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c12
David Disseldorp
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c13
Marcus Meissner
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c14
David Disseldorp
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c15
Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c16
Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732763#c17
Swamp Workflow Management
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com