[packman] Collective bugreport

[Herbert Graeber]

Am Montag, 5. März 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
> just a quick mail to notify the packagers that there are bugs in some
> packages. If you happen to be maintainer for a specific package, please
> fix it at the next best time, thanks.
> Only files in the 10.2 tree were examined.
>
>
> (1)
> Packages created by Toni Graffy contain
>
> 	Packager    : Toni Graffy <toni at link2linus.de>
>
> it should perhaps be @links2linux.de.

Looks like a typo from Toni.

> (2)
> Running the following examination command
>
> 	for i in *.src.rpm; do
> 		rpm -qp "$i" --qf="%{PACKAGER}\t%{NAME}\n";
> 	done | sort
>
> turned up a number of oddities (full list at the end of mail):
>
> 	%packager       faac
> 	%packager       lame
> 	%packager       lame
> 	.
> 	.
> 	.
> 	(none)  ac3jack
> 	(none)  bonk
> 	.
> 	.
> 	<many more>

I am using Detlefs packmbuild_lb.py built upon lbuild. I think the packager
will be taken from .packmanrobot in this case. But some of my spec files do 
contain an explicit Packager tag. Good question if this ok or not. Who's tha 
packager, the one who wrote the spec file or the one who has build the 
package? Deltef builds x86_64 packages for man of us (But not for me).

> (3)
> Similarly, querying for %{DISTRIBUTION} does not always return "openSUSE
> 10.2" as Novell/SUSE uses. Or one of %distribution or (none).
> Some also have "9.3", "10.0" or "10.1" in them.

This should be added by on of the scripts mentioned above. But for my packages 
I observed that the openSUSE 10.2 packages have a Distribution tag "SUSE 
Linux 10.1". The changelog of build mentioned such a fix from Okt 2006.

> (4)
> Same goes for %{VENDOR}.

My vendor is Packman. I think this is ok.

> (5)
> CELayoutEditor links against wxWidgets 2.6, but Packman offers WX 2.8,
> so the user is forced to choose one.

As long as wxWidgets 2.8 is compatible to 2.6 that's ok.

> (6)
> Some packages have a lot of excessive Requires: tags, e.g.
> ingen-0.4pre-0.pm.svn20070224. Picking a Require: from ingen,
>
> 	Requires: libxml2 >= 2.6
>
> This dependency is automatically added through the AutoReqProv mechanism
> (enabled by default) if there is a binary that links against libxml2.

Yes, SUSE recommends to *not* use an explict Requires in this case, too. 

> (7)
> Just a hint: Quite every specfile uses %{macro}. However, RPM also
> accepts %macro, just as bash takes both $var and ${var}.

I like %{macro} more than %macro. This doesn't matter.

> (8)
> Some specfiles have Packager:/Vendor:/etc. tags. These _do not_
> belong into specfiles, but your .rpmmacros file, or whatever is
> appropriate for the build system you are using. The full list is at the
> end of the mail. Examples:
> 	Lin3gp.spec:Vendor:         Packman
> 	MPlayer.spec:Vendor:            %vendor
> (Plus, Vendor: always defaults to %vendor so that line is redundant,
> but see (4).)

That's ok for distribution and vendor. These should be added by the scripts 
and/or .rpmmacros. I am not so sure for the Packager tag. Because i am both 
maintainer of the spec file and builder of the package i do not matter...

> (9)
> Some packages (e.g. CELayoutEditor) link against wxWidgets 2.6,
> but packman provides a 2.8 so these are mutually exclusive if a user
> attempts to install either wx or CEL. You might want to look through it.

That's a question og compatibility of the packages. If they are not compatible 
it would better not to provide the new library version, or to provide some 
means to have both installed.

> [...]

Thank you for this work. It wil make our packages a little bit better...

Herbert