Bug 230142

Does anyone have any spare cycles to look at this?  This new package is a
combination of the four existing packages and adding some new ones based on the
templates of the four already approved packages.

Just a few comments from a beginner
- all SourceN should be full URL; according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL , one should use smtg similar
to Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Could you please explain why %dist provided by the build system is not
satisfactory and you rely on a specific custom macro (%{?!LINUX_DISTRIBUTION:
%define LINUX_DISTRIBUTION fc6}) ?
- perl is on the exception list, so it does not need to be listed as BR; OTOH
depending on the requirements of the packaged software and on the avenue taken
by the on-going discussions which take place these days, perl-devel MIGHT need
to be needed. See
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00025.html for
some details.


And last but not least, mock build fails. The build log ends with:
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libLinux_NFSv3SettingContext.so
matches
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libcmpiOSBase_BootOSFromFSProvider.so
mat
ches
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libSyslog_ServiceProcess.so
matches
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libSyslog_LogRecord.so matches
Found '/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild' in installed files; aborting
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.44358 (%install)

- your approach of including 11 different programs in a single megapackage leads
to the situation that, if any of the 11 needs rebuilding, the only solution is
to rebuild ALL of them. Even if the version and releases for the non-modified 10
other are preserved, they will still be built (even if they will not be pushed
after that)
- The actual install is done in a global %build. This kind of violates the
current practices.

I for one am in favor of keeping the packages separated, with clean and clear
(read: %make / %install) specs for each one of them. If needed, a meta-package
could also be created so that yum install sblim would pull in all the stuff.
Since they are similar, 4 of them have already been approved and provide rather
important stuff, I am confident that the reviews would not have problems.

Oh well, working in too many windows + copy/paste from a text console is evil.
Please bear with the "need to be needed" which should be read "need to be added"
and with the wrong order of paragraphs. The "last but not least" should have
been the last paragraph.

Hmm, no further updates after that review commentary.  But I have to ask, why on
Earth would you want to combine that many separate upstream packages into one
srpm that builds a pile of separate binary packages?  It makes no sense.  Every
time one of the component packages is revised you have to ship all new releases
of everything.

Really, please don't try to do things like this.  You need 11 separate packages
here.  And if you do make 11 separate packages, please elide all of the "echo
***" stuff and do your "make install" in %install and such.

Mark is no longer working on this.  Last review comment indicated it was a bad idea to merge these.  Closing.