RE: [Review - Not yet] libsmi
Thanks again Harold. I'll go through it and review your packaging recommendation. It might take me a couple of days though because of the holiday weekend :) -Original Message- From: Harold L Hunt II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 12:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Abe Backus Subject: Re: [Review - Not yet] libsmi Abe, Here are some things I did: 1) Used a standard build script. 2) Passed -no-undefined on the LDFLAGS to allow the DLL to be built. 3) Ran 'make check' to see that only 1 of the 20 test failed (the last one, seems to be something trivial). 4) Relibtoolized the source to allow the DLL to be built. 5) Fixed mibs/Makefile.am and mibs/*/Makefile.am to allow the 'make install' command to properly install the mibs when srcdir != builddir. 6) Updated the libsmi.README file to list proper build requirements. 7) Updated the setup.hint file to list proper run-time requirements. 8) Rolled the libsmi, libsmi-devel, and libsmi-tools packages back into one package (this was really the default from using a generic build script). The libsmi package was only containing the readme files and not much else (it was around 30 KiB). Now that we have a DLL we could change this to be: libsmi (docs, exes, mibs, etc.), libsmi2 (contains the DLL), and libsmi-devel (includes and link libs). I have some previous packages that I have done this for and I could do it for this package as well (the process consists of copying a few lines into the build script and tweaking a few other lines). Here are my files: cut here -- #!/bin/bash wget \ http://msu.edu/~huntharo/cygwin/release/libsmi/libsmi-0.4.1-1.tar.bz2 wget \ http://msu.edu/~huntharo/cygwin/release/libsmi/libsmi-0.4.1-1-src.tar.bz2 cut here -- I think these changes really improve the package, but I admit that it is not 100% complete yet. Feel free to do with these changes as you want to. Harold
Re: [Review - Not yet] libsmi
Abe, I have an interesting update for the libsmi package. I got it to build shared libraries and it passes 19 of the 20 tests. I am very close to having it build out of the source directory... the one remaining step is to get the mibs to install correctly. I should have an updated -src package for you soon that you can take over. Harold
Re: [Review - Not yet] libsmi
Abe, Here are some things I did: 1) Used a standard build script. 2) Passed -no-undefined on the LDFLAGS to allow the DLL to be built. 3) Ran 'make check' to see that only 1 of the 20 test failed (the last one, seems to be something trivial). 4) Relibtoolized the source to allow the DLL to be built. 5) Fixed mibs/Makefile.am and mibs/*/Makefile.am to allow the 'make install' command to properly install the mibs when srcdir != builddir. 6) Updated the libsmi.README file to list proper build requirements. 7) Updated the setup.hint file to list proper run-time requirements. 8) Rolled the libsmi, libsmi-devel, and libsmi-tools packages back into one package (this was really the default from using a generic build script). The libsmi package was only containing the readme files and not much else (it was around 30 KiB). Now that we have a DLL we could change this to be: libsmi (docs, exes, mibs, etc.), libsmi2 (contains the DLL), and libsmi-devel (includes and link libs). I have some previous packages that I have done this for and I could do it for this package as well (the process consists of copying a few lines into the build script and tweaking a few other lines). Here are my files: cut here -- #!/bin/bash wget \ http://msu.edu/~huntharo/cygwin/release/libsmi/libsmi-0.4.1-1.tar.bz2 wget \ http://msu.edu/~huntharo/cygwin/release/libsmi/libsmi-0.4.1-1-src.tar.bz2 cut here -- I think these changes really improve the package, but I admit that it is not 100% complete yet. Feel free to do with these changes as you want to. Harold
RE: [Review - Not yet] libsmi
Thank you Harold, I really appreciate your taking the time to review this package :) I've updated the package. All files are in the same location. -Original Message- Package: libsmi 0.4.1-1 [2003-10-11] Description: Library to access SMI MIB information Proposer: Abe Backus Proposal: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://abraham.backus.com/release/libsmi/libsmi-0.4.1-1.tar.bz2 http://abraham.backus.com/release/libsmi/libsmi-0.4.1-1-src.tar.bz2 http://abraham.backus.com/release/libsmi/setup.hint Also: libsmi-devel [A library to access SMI MIB information] http://abraham.backus.com/release/libsmi/libsmi-devel/libsmi-devel-0.4.1-1.t ar.bz2 http://abraham.backus.com/release/libsmi/libsmi-devel/setup.hint Also: libsmi-tools [Tools using a library to access SMI MIB information] http://abraham.backus.com/release/libsmi/libsmi-tools/libsmi-tools-0.4.1-1.t ar.bz2 http://abraham.backus.com/release/libsmi/libsmi-tools/setup.hint Status: Package available. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No good to go review. Problems 1) The all command fails: tar (child): libsmi-0.4.1.tar.gz: Cannot open: No such file or directory tar (child): Error is not recoverable: exiting now tar: Child returned status 2 tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors 2) The original source file is not included in your -src archive (see #1). Basically, the -src package is messed up. I will resume my review when the -src package layout is fixed.
Re: [Review - Not yet] libsmi
Abe, Abe Backus wrote: Thank you Harold, I really appreciate your taking the time to review this package :) No problem. This is weird: the -src tarball still have the CYGWIN-PATCHES directory in it... usually those files are contained in the source directory and they are created when the patch file is applied via the prep step in the build script. Any particular reason why they are included in the -src file instead of being created by the patch in the libsmi-0.4.1 directory? Harold
Re: [Review - Not yet] libsmi
Abe, Abe Backus wrote: Thank you Harold, I really appreciate your taking the time to review this package :) Oops, looks like the new file you posted still doesn't contain the original libsmi-0.4.1.tar.gz source file. That explains why you don't have a diff against it. Let me know when you have fixed it. By the way, is this just a mistake or do you need some tips on how to improve/correct this? I have no idea if you are a master package maintainer or not, so forgive my asking. Harold
