[packman] Collective bugreport

[Pascal Bleser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Herbert Graeber wrote:
> Am Montag, 5. März 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
...
> 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).

That's a good question indeed, especially for the website.
At some point, we should add a "maintainer" information somewhere in the
Packman database -- typically, the first person who has built that package.

- From that point of view, Packager: should be the one who builds.

OTOH, we could also just hard-code Packager: instead, to the name of the
maintainer.

In the end, it's just a piece of information, but that's where people
should send bug reports to.

Personally, I think Packager: should _not_ be set explicitly in the spec
file but come from the ~/.rpmmacros instead (= do not mention Packager:
at all in the spec file, but set "%packager ..." in ~/.rpmmacros).
But given the situation at Packman where some people (= Detlef) build
packages for others...

>> (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.

Still, this is also something that should come from ~/.rpmmacros, not
from the spec file nor from a script.

>> (4)
>> Same goes for %{VENDOR}.
> 
> My vendor is Packman. I think this is ok.

Makes sense, indeed.

>> (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. 

Indeed, explicit Requires: is bad practice for several reasons.
Unless the SONAME is wrong (= bad SONAME management from upstream),
there is no reason to do so.

People should use package managers to install packages, not wget+rpm.

>> (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.

Me too ;)
(easier to parse, btw ;))

[...]

cheers
- --
  -o) Pascal Bleser     http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
  /\\ <pascal.bleser at skynet.be>       <guru at unixtech.be>
 _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF7JXzr3NMWliFcXcRAnD0AKCarYel4rOZK1Vmg8tPMME9TCb0hQCfexVC
5H1b+7nisikOOheZVFOxvdo=
=Sltd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----