Re: [Announce] Libmcrypt and mcrypt rpm's for Fedora 1 and Red Hat 9

From: Michael Schwendt (ms-nospam-0306_at_arcor.de)
Date: 12/28/03

  • Next message: Harry Hoffman: "Re: Variables in /etc/sysconfig ?" 
    To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:53:40 +0100

    On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:34:33 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:

    > For those of you who are interested I made available (S)RPM's for
    > libmcrypt, libmcrypt-devel and mcrypt for both Fedora Core 1 and Red Hat
    > Linux 9 at http://www.ottolander.nl/opensource/mcrypt/mcrypt.html .
    >
    > I feel it would be nice if these RPM's and libmhash would be included in
    > the core distribution, so PHP can be built with support for libmcrypt and
    > libmhash, as fe SUSE already does.
    >
    > Feel free to contact me about any improvements you think I should make to
    > the SPEC files.

    Your spec file is missing %defattr statements in the %files section. Due
    to that, currently all files in your binary rpms are owned by user leonard
    group leonard. I'm certain you don't want that. Where the packages are
    installed, an arbitary user with that uid/gid will own the installed files
    and be able to modify them.

    Instead of

      CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" ./configure --prefix=/usr \
      --mandir=%{_mandir} --enable-static --libdir=%_libdir

    you could use:

      CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %configure --enable-static

    I'd recommend %setup -q to untar the source tarball quietly (this makes
    build logs smaller, too).

    My personal point of view with regard to RPM macros in "Patch:" fields is,
    it doesn't make much sense to use macros there. Usually there is no need
    to update a patch with the next upstream version of the software. And
    hence there is no need to make patch file names depend on the software
    version. Instead of e.g. libmcrypt-%{version}-notdynamic.diff, I would
    use a generic name or a hardcoded version. When a patch isn't updated, but
    its file name changes from one package version to the next package
    version, this only increases the content in rpm diffs. Rule of thumb: Only
    update packaged files and the spec file where necessary.

    If you want users and reviewers to be able to verify the included source
    tarballs easily, include a complete macro-free URL to the Source tarball,
    either directly in the "Source:" fields or as comments above. 

    -- 



    -- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
  • Next message: Harry Hoffman: "Re: Variables in /etc/sysconfig ?"

    Relevant Pages