Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731898 --- Comment #17 from Steve Jenkins <st...@stevejenkins.com> 2011-08-23 01:18:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) > Excellent. Much progress. Thx - I'm learning gobs. > You asked about the proper place for Requires(preun) and (post). Where they > are is fine. You also need Requires(postun): initscripts to handle > /sbin/service for the condrestart. If it happened that chkconfig and service > were invoked from a subpackage, not from the main package, you would put these > Requires: instead in the %package section for each subpackage. That isn't the > case here, but should help explain why it's OK to be where they're at. Ah - I meant to put the Requires(postun): initscripts in there last time. It's in there now. > Re the config file, one thing you could do is leave the pointer to the example > config as a comment at the top as you have, and then leave all the comments > out > of the file you generate and install. That'd make it shorter. OTOH, the > variables that are being used for substitution very likely don't change from > distro version to version. %{_sysconfdir} and %{_localstatedir} are the only > interesting ones for functionality, and they haven't changed in years, so > hard-coding those in an file isn't such a problem. The comments reference > %{_docdir} (again, no worries), and explicitly %{name}-%{version}, for which > it > would be nice to have substitution on the version. However you want to handle > it is fine. Good to know! I think I'll keep it as-is for now. > %configure, you don't need CPPFLAGS anymore. Check. Fixed. > rpmbuild threw a warning that /var/run/opendkim was included twice. I doubled up with an attr line. Fixed now. > it wouldn't hurt to have an 'exit 0' at the end of %preun and %post, just to > be > safe. The others I think can't fail with a non-zero exit code. Added. > upstream source sure does throw a lot of warnings. :-( Upstream source's "native" OS is BSD, so I don't know how many of those warnings are by virtue of the fact that the upstream developer doesn't have access to a RH box for building. He is, however, very responsive to feedback, but me not being a programmer, I'd have a hard time deciphering what warnings are worth mentioning to him. I'll forward him a build.log and he can take a peek, or if there are any biggies that you note, please let me know and I'll pass them up. > Does it build properly if using make -j? > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make > if not, a comment would be good. My .rpmmacros is: %_topdir %(echo $HOME)/rpmbuild %_smp_mflags %( \ [ -z "$RPM_BUILD_NCPUS" ] \\\ && RPM_BUILD_NCPUS="`/usr/bin/getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN`"; \\\ if [ "$RPM_BUILD_NCPUS" -gt 16 ]; then \\\ echo "-j16"; \\\ elif [ "$RPM_BUILD_NCPUS" -gt 3 ]; then \\\ echo "-j$RPM_BUILD_NCPUS"; \\\ else \\\ echo "-j3"; \\\ fi ) %__arch_install_post \ [ "%{buildarch}" = "noarch" ] || QA_CHECK_RPATHS=1 ; \ case "${QA_CHECK_RPATHS:-}" in [1yY]*) /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths ;; esac \ /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot and on this latest spec file, I added %{?_smp_mflags} to the make line, and it seemed to build fine. Although, if that's not a proper test of what you're asking about, let me know and I'll take another stab at testing it. > These are all trivial to fix. I suppose I should do a formal review next... Most recent changes are now at: http://packages.stevejenkins.com/opendkim/2.4.2/working/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
