Spec URL: http://sblim.sourceforge.net/fedora-rpms/sblim.spec SRPM URL: http://sblim.sourceforge.net/fedora-rpms/sblim-1-12.fc6.src.rpm SBLIM is currently in Fedora extras as four packages: sblim-cmpi-base sblim-cmpi-devel sblim-testsuite sblim-wbemcli I am proposing removing those four and creating just one sblim pacakge. This package will then build all of the subcomponents within it. Currently, it builds: sblim-cmpi-base sblim-cmpi-devel sblim-wbemcli sblim-gather sblim-testsuite sblim-cmpi-network sblim-cmpi-params sblim-cmpi-sysfs sblim-cmpi-syslog sblim-cmpi-fsvol sblim-cmpi-nfsv3 sblim-cmpi-nfsv4 A short description is: SBLIM stands for Standards Based Linux Instrumentation for Manageability, and consists of a set of standards based Web Based Enterprise Management (WBEM) modules that use the Common Information Model (CIM) standard to gather and provide systems management information, events, and methods to local or networked consumers via an CIM object services broker using the CMPI (Common Manageability Programming Interface) standard. This package provides a set of core providers and development tools for systems management applications.
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.