Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 188668
Review Request: zenity
Last modified: 2013-01-09 20:22:46 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/zenity.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/zenity-2.14.1-2.src.rpm
Description: This is part of the effort to split the current hard to maintain
multitarball gnome-utils packages into separate packages.
- Package builds w/ mock on 32 and 64bit
- rpmlint is silent.
- Missing autoconf as a BuildRequires
Would the postun and post cause scrollkeeper-update to run 2x each time this
package is upgraded? Once for the install and once for the removal? If so,
shouldn't this be logic wrapped so that the postun call only happens when it is
flat out removed?
new spec: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/zenity.spec
new srpm: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/zenity-2.14.1-3.src.rpm
changes: add BuildRequires: autoconf
We certainly could do better with the scrollkeeper-update thing, but that is
not the current practise. In general, having a working transaction-hook would
be nice on many counts.
There are packaging guidelines you know.
Including scriptlet snippets:
and specifically one for scrollkeeper:
Yes, it appears that this package needs to follow the guidelines for scrollkeeper.
Specifcally the Requires(pre) and Requires(post).
You've also got some unnecessary BuildRequirements. glib2-devel, gtk2-devel,
libglade2-devel can all be dropped since libgnomecanvas-devel will pull these
I know there are packaging guidelines, but I don't know how I am supposed to
consider the ScriptletSnipplets page to be part of them. It isn't even linked from
the Packaging/Guidelines page, so how should I even find it ?!
I disagree wrt to the BuildRequires. A direct dependency should still be listed,
even if it would also be pulled in indirectly.
(In reply to comment #6)
> I know there are packaging guidelines, but I don't know how I am supposed to
> consider the ScriptletSnipplets page to be part of them. It isn't even linked
> the Packaging/Guidelines page, so how should I even find it ?!
It' s the first sub-heading under Packaging Guidelines on the Fedora Extras page.
Now go to
and tell me if you see a link there.
has Requires(post) and Requires(postun) now (not pre and post, as
comment #4 wrongly suggested)
What are your objections against using common scriptlets?
The fact that they are not linked directly I would consider a bug.
I have no objections to helpful hints.
I do have objections to blindly following orders.
What in particular do you think is amiss in the scriplets in my latest spec ?
My first comment was ment as a hint. I realize now it could be considered snide.
Your scripts are just different than the ones on the common scriptlets page. I
just don't consider the realm of sciptlets in packaging for a widely used common
distribution base an appropriate place for creative differences. Every such
difference makes cornercases for everyone and everything that tries to deal with
these specs. Be it human or automatic.
If you have objections against the common scriptlets why not discuss them rather
than creating yet another variety.
But thats just me. Anal retentive if you wish..
Changes look good, rpmlint is silent, package builds w/ mock. Scriptlets work
even if they aren't EXACTLY like the suggested ones, thats passible.