Bug 1119947

Summary:	Review Request: makepp - Compatible but reliable and improved replacement for make
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Julian Stecklina <js>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	i, js, msuchy, package-review, robinlee.sysu
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-08-03 14:42:57 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Julian Stecklina 2014-07-15 23:03:22 UTC

Spec URL: http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/~jsteckli/tmp/makepp.spec
SRPM URL: http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/~jsteckli/tmp/makepp-2.0.98.5-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: Makepp, a build program which has a number of features that allow for
reliable builds and simpler build files, is a drop-in replacement for
GNU make. It supports almost all of the syntax that GNU make supports,
and can be used with makefiles produced by utilities such as
automake. It is called makepp (or make++) because it was designed with
special support for C++, which has since been extended to other
languages like Swig or embedded SQL.
Fedora Account System Username: boelthorn

This is my first review request and I need a sponsor. Koji builds this just fine:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7147760

Comment 1 Christopher Meng 2014-07-16 00:43:00 UTC

Thanks for packaging it.

Comment 2 Christopher Meng 2014-07-16 00:43:11 UTC

*** Bug 1001452 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Michael Schwendt 2014-07-25 20:59:21 UTC

A quick look at the spec file:


> %doc

To be deleted. An empty %doc line makes no sense. It's a no-op.


> %{_bindir}/*

Sort of sloppy packaging, because this would include anything in the package and would even accept a missing %{_bindir}/%{name} executable. Please be a little more explicit about which files to include, also to increase clearness/comprehensibility of the spec file. A compromise would be to do

  %{_bindir}/%{name}*
  %{_bindir}/mpp*

with the caveat that it would also not fail for an absent %{_bindir}/%{name} file (or other files people expect to be available). Ideal would be to either spell out all files you never want to be missing, or to add a guard that verifies whether e.g. %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} is available. The %install or %check section is suitable for that.


> %{_mandir}/*

Here the brevity leads to including too many subdirs of %{_mandir}, which belong into the "filesystem" package already and must not be included in your package:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership


> %{_datadir}/makepp/*
> %{_defaultdocdir}/makepp/*

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories

Comment 4 Miroslav Suchý 2016-07-29 13:23:27 UTC

Julian, are you still interrested in? You provided no response to Michael comment. If there will be no response, then this review will be closed.

Comment 5 Julian Stecklina 2016-07-30 17:41:28 UTC

Please close. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to pursue this further.