11:45 a.m.
First let me say that if anyone wants to be the primary maintainer of pvm
please step up! I only need it as a dependency.
While fixing the build for rawhide due to a tcl/tk update I had to look at
the spec file and it was horrifying (ok, I'm exaggerating a bit).
The sources are extracted directly into the buildroot and then built in
place. Also, it is "installed" (if you can call it that) into /usr/share
even though it includes static libraries and binaries (which are later
symlinked into /usr/bin)
So questions:
1. Is this even legal?
2. Should this package go through a re-review?
3. Can the install location be changed at this point? Other distros seem
to install into /usr/lib{,64} and symlink the binaries from there.
There are also a large number of patches, some of which for secondary
arches so I don't think I'm the right person to lead the charge here....
Any volunteers?
Thanks,
Richard
12:34 p.m.
On Fri, 30 May 2014 11:45:11 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
First let me say that if anyone wants to be the primary maintainer of
pvm
please step up! I only need it as a dependency.
While fixing the build for rawhide due to a tcl/tk update I had to look at
the spec file and it was horrifying (ok, I'm exaggerating a bit).
The sources are extracted directly into the buildroot and then built in
place. Also, it is "installed" (if you can call it that) into /usr/share
even though it includes static libraries and binaries (which are later
symlinked into /usr/bin)
So questions:
1. Is this even legal?
2. Should this package go through a re-review?
The original "Merge Review" was closed after five years of nobody
showing interest in it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/226327
Rather than reopening that old ticket it would always be possible
to open a new one, though. ;)
3. Can the install location be changed at this point? Other distros
seem
to install into /usr/lib{,64} and symlink the binaries from there.
There are also a large number of patches, some of which for secondary
arches so I don't think I'm the right person to lead the charge here....
Any volunteers?
Thanks,
Richard
12:40 p.m.
On Fri, 30 May 2014 11:45:11 -0500
Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
First let me say that if anyone wants to be the primary maintainer of
pvm
please step up! I only need it as a dependency.
While fixing the build for rawhide due to a tcl/tk update I had to look at
the spec file and it was horrifying (ok, I'm exaggerating a bit).
The sources are extracted directly into the buildroot and then built in
place. Also, it is "installed" (if you can call it that) into /usr/share
even though it includes static libraries and binaries (which are later
symlinked into /usr/bin)
So questions:
1. Is this even legal?
No.
Looking through the older branches, I can see that the same way has
been in use in Fedora 7... And I'd be tempted to say that this
originates from pre-2000.
So a *major* rewrite of the spec file is in order. [To fix things one
might also have to fix the upstream build scripts. I'm guessing they're
the root cause here.]
2. Should this package go through a re-review?
Not according to the policy, no.
The package has been in Fedora the whole time, and the maintainers are
supposed to keep the spec files up-to-date with Fedora policies.
Since the spec file is breaking the packaging guidelines pretty
heavily, IIRC according to policy all provenpackagers are allowed to
step in and fix the issues.
3. Can the install location be changed at this point? Other distros
seem
to install into /usr/lib{,64} and symlink the binaries from there.
I think so.
There are also a large number of patches, some of which for
secondary
arches so I don't think I'm the right person to lead the charge here....
Any volunteers?
But these shouldn't matter..
--
Susi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org
7:36 p.m.
Susi Lehtola wrote:
Richard Shaw wrote:
> 2. Should this package go through a re-review?
Not according to the policy, no.
The package has been in Fedora the whole time, and the maintainers are
supposed to keep the spec files up-to-date with Fedora policies.
It was supposed to go through a merge review (during the Core-Extras Merge),
the one that was inappropriately closed without the packaging issues getting
resolved.
The policy was supposed to be that packages that do not pass the merge
review get removed. This was just never enforced.
Kevin Kofler
1:08 p.m.
On Fri, 30 May 2014 11:45:11 -0500
Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
First let me say that if anyone wants to be the primary maintainer of
pvm
please step up! I only need it as a dependency.
What package are you referring to?
# repoquery --whatrequires pvm
pvm-gui-0:3.4.6-5.fc20.x86_64
# repoquery --whatrequires /usr/bin/pvm
#
I think pvm can be safely retired. The upstream seems to have been dead
for years.
--
Susi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org
2:28 p.m.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Susi Lehtola
<jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2014 11:45:11 -0500
Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> First let me say that if anyone wants to be the primary maintainer of pvm
> please step up! I only need it as a dependency.
What package are you referring to?
I co-maintain pvm with Richard because it's a dependency for mplayer
in RPM Fusion.
If we could build mplayer without pvm support, I would certainly be
all for that.
- Ken
9:51 p.m.
Ken Dreyer wrote:
I co-maintain pvm with Richard because it's a dependency for
mplayer
in RPM Fusion.
If we could build mplayer without pvm support, I would certainly be
all for that.
pvm isn't a runtime requirement of mplayer and it isn't listed as a
build requirement in the spec file. "rpmbuild -bb mplayer.spec"
completes quite happily for me on f20 without any pvm installed. What
is the nature of the dependency on pvm?
--
Andrew Schultz
ajschult(a)verizon.net
http://www.sens.buffalo.edu/~ajs42/
3611
days inactive
3612
days old
6 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Andrew Schultz -
Ken Dreyer -
Kevin Kofler -
Michael Schwendt -
Richard Shaw -
Susi Lehtola