[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: New Package: fish



On 6/27/05, Michael Schwendt <bugs michael gmx net> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:04:16 +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
> 
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > Thank you for your input. I'm sorry for the delay in my reply, but
> > while I was writing my reply, my appendix burst, and I've spent the
> > last few days recovering from surgery.
> 
> Hope everything is going well enough to take a first comment
> (I'd like to give Oliver a chance to review/approve this). :-)

Thank you. I'm still a bit weak, but I'm getting better by the hour. :)

>
> > >  * "License: GPL"? No. The C source files disagree. => LGPL
> >
> > All code written by me is released under the GPL.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> > >  * Your %postun script will break upgrades, as it will be executed
> > >    last. Look like e.g. "bash" does it.
> >
> > I run fedora myself, and I've upgraded hundreds of time over the last
> > few months, without any issues. The fish entry is not removed after an
> > upgrade.
> 
> It is.  %postun is executed _last_ during an upgrade operation,
> i.e. _after_ the new package was installed and _after_ the new package
> had added its entry to /etc/shells. Effectively, it removes the entry.

Oh. I just realised I usually do a 'rpm -e fish; rpm -i fish' since
both versions usually have the same version number.

> 
> > I checked what bash does, and the only difference is that the editing
> > of /etc/shells is conditioned on
> >
> > if [ "$1" = 0 ]; then
> >
> > which I don't know what it does, since I haven't been able to find out
> > what parameters are sent to the postun script. Sorry, but I don't own
> > any books on RPM.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on the problem?
> 
> Some information is summed up here:
> 
> Running scriptlets only in certain situations
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#head-56184a8dc666e4aa73eeb9de3139c5bdcedf6bba

Thank you, that is exactly the information I wanted. Now I understand
what the script is doing. Updated the spec accordingly.

> 
> Entry page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines
> 
> A community-enhanced online version of Ed Bailey's Maximum RPM book
> can be found here: http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/
> 
> > >  * Package doesn't build with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS, because it overrides CFLAGS
> > >    with its own flags.
> >
> > fish uses some c99 features, I've had issues with some gcc version
> > unless --std=gnu99 is specified. fno-strict-aliasing is there to
> > remove warnings on Alpha. I fear that fish will not build correctly in
> > all cases without gnu99.
> 
> Use of %configure fixed this issue already. Your code now inherits
> the CFLAGS passed in from the outside.

On my machine neither -std=gnu99 or -fno-strict-aliasing is specified
automatically, which results in spurious compilation warnings if they
are removed from the Makefile. A few months ago fish would not even
compile without gnu99, something about using a pid_t as a field in a
struct triped up the compiler. Don't know if the compiler has been
upgraded or if the source has changed since. How should the spec file
specify that these options are needed by fish for proper compiling, if
they are not hardcoded in the Makefile?

> 
> > >  * (RFE: Is it possible to install documentation files into %_docdir like
> > >    most other packages? i.e. %_datadir/doc/%name-%version)
> >
> > This required minor changes to the source, but the documentation
> > directory is now specified by;
> >
> > %configure docdir=%_datadir/doc/%{name}-%{version}
> 
> checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
> ./configure: line 2756: /usr/share/doc/fish-1.11.1: No such file or directory
> checking for /proc/self/stat... yes
> 
> Is this related? It's new in release 4.

Oops. Yes, that is a new bug I introduced while fixing the docdir issue. Fixed.

> 
> --
> Michael Schwendt <mschwendt users sf net>
> Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz) - Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4
> loadavg: 1.29 1.50 1.44
> 
> --
> fedora-extras-list mailing list
> fedora-extras-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
> 

Both the above issues are fixed in this new version, but I've put of
the CFLAGS thing until I understand the proper way to solve this. New
version can be found at:

http://roo.no-ip.org/fish/fedora/fish-1.11.1-5.src.rpm

Looking forward to more comments.

--
Axel


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]