[Bug 226079] Merge Review: libxml2

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: libxml2


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226079


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tibbs at math.uh.edu




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-05-30 22:32 EST -------
Looks like someone needs to moderate here.

First off, I'd hope that nobody gets nasty regardless of how dogmatic people are
being.

Please keep in mind at all times that rpmlint is a tool, not any authoritative
source of packaging knowledge.  It can be quite dumb and its results always need
to be filtered by a human.

Now, when dealing with rpmlint output, it's always nice to have the actual
output somewhere in the ticket so we can see just what's being complained about.
 I think it's this:

  libxml2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libxml2-2.6.32/ChangeLog.gz
  libxml2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libxml2-2.6.32/NEWS

The issues seem to reside solely with people's names.  Isn't it anyone's
priority that the contributors' names at least render properly somewhere?

Here are the other two utf8-related complaints, which I don't think are at issue
here; the C source is purposefully not utf8 anyway.
  libxml2-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 
   /usr/share/doc/libxml2-devel-2.6.32/examples/testWriter.c
  libxml2-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
   /usr/share/doc/libxml2-devel-2.6.32/examples/writer.xml


In any case, hopefully some useful discussion will result from this
fedora-packaging post:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-May/msg00070.html

And regardless, this ticket should certainly stay open, because nobody's done a
full review yet.  I built current CVS and found a few more issues:

/usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/libxml2mod.a (from libxml2-python) seems to
be spurious; I don't think that's useful for anything at all.

The -devel package seems to have a dependency on /usr/bin/python solely because
of the executable documentation.  rpmlint will complain about executable
documentation:
  libxml2-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm  
   /usr/share/doc/libxml2-devel-2.6.32/examples/index.py
  libxml2-devel.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency 
   /usr/share/doc/libxml2-devel-2.6.32/examples/index.py /usr/bin/python
  (repeat many times)
which isn't really an issue unless it causes unwanted dependencies.  I don't
know if the dependency is problematic in this case; I'm not sure if the -python
package was split up in an attempt to reduce dependencies or not, but I'm pretty
sure this is a non-issue.  If the main package had grown a python dependency
then I'd see that as a problem.

Looks like there's a typo in some of the recent changelog entries:
  libxml2.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.6.31-3.fc10 2.6.32-3.fc10

The only other rpmlint complaint is:
  libxml2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
which is obviously not a problem.

Outside of rpmlint, I glanced at the specfile and noted a couple of additional
issues.

The general prohibition on the %makeinstall macro forces me to ask if a regular
"make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}" will work for this package.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used

Finally, I know this is pretty trivial, but because it makes the specfile a bit
more readable, please choose either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} and use it
consistently.  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.