Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 174266
Summary: | Review Request: libgsf113 - GNOME Structured File library 1.13 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Hans de Goede <hdegoede> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michael A. Peters <mpeters> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | micwise | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
URL: | http://home.zonnet.nl/jwrdegoede/libgsf113.spec | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2005-11-28 15:36:55 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 163779, 174267 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Hans de Goede
2005-11-26 22:36:31 UTC
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{libgsfdir}/share/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/libgsf.mo rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{libgsfdir}/lib/*.la rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{libgsfdir}/bin/gsf-office-thumbnailer rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{libgsfdir}/etc/gconf/schemas/gsf-office-thumbnailer.schemas rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{libgsfdir}/share/man/man1/gsf-office-thumbnailer.1 rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{libgsfdir}/lib/*.a rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{libgsfdir}/share/gtk-doc/html/gsf I assume those are deleted because they conflict with core package? A comment in spec file/changelog would be useful as to why they are removed. rpmlint warnings after mock build: [mpeters@utility result]$ rpmlint *.rpm W: libgsf113 no-url-tag W: libgsf113 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/libgsf113-i386.conf W: libgsf113 no-url-tag E: libgsf113 configure-without-libdir-spec W: libgsf113-debuginfo no-url-tag W: libgsf113-devel no-provides libgsf-devel E: libgsf113-devel description-line-too-long Libraries, headers, and support files necessary to compile applications using libgsf. W: libgsf113-devel no-url-tag E: libgsf113-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib [mpeters@utility result]$ The no-url-tag can be fixed The ld.so.conf.d file should be marked %config E: libgsf113 configure-without-libdir-spec I believe that is OK because it is installed where it does not conflict with the core package. However: [mpeters@utility result]$ rpm -qlp libgsf113-1.13.3-1.i386.rpm /etc/ld.so.conf.d/libgsf113-i386.conf /usr/lib/libgsf-1.13/lib/libgsf-1.so.113 /usr/lib/libgsf-1.13/lib/libgsf-1.so.113.0.3 /usr/lib/libgsf-1.13/lib/libgsf-gnome-1.so.113 /usr/lib/libgsf-1.13/lib/libgsf-gnome-1.so.113.0.3 /usr/share/doc/libgsf113-1.13.3 /usr/share/doc/libgsf113-1.13.3/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/libgsf113-1.13.3/COPYING /usr/share/doc/libgsf113-1.13.3/README It looks to me like the libraries *could* be installed in %{_libdir} and would not conflict with core libgsf (and eliminate neeed for custom ld.so.conf file) The shared libraries seem to be parallel installable. -=- E: libgsf113-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I'm not sure about that one - what's triggering it? (In reply to comment #2) > > It looks to me like the libraries *could* be installed in %{_libdir} and would > not conflict with core libgsf (and eliminate neeed for custom ld.so.conf file) > > The shared libraries seem to be parallel installable. Nevermind - no they aren't, due to the devel .so files In reply to comment #1: -The .mo file is also removed in the core spec file, which I used as a base dunno why. -.la files are evil and should be removed, this is actually in the review guidelines. -The gsf-office-thumbnailer files are removed because this is an application not needed for building against the lib, it could be left in but users still would get the old verison by default since that is in /usr/bin, i basicly see no use for this. -The .a file is removed because I see no use for a static library of this specific (newer then default) version, also there is a general discussion if static libs should be shipped at all. All this files could be left in without a conflict since they are all under %{libgsfdir}. Should I add the above "items" as comments to the .spec? Comment #2: I'll fix the %config and URL tag Comment #3: Correct Created attachment 121543 [details]
improved specfile
New specfile, I can't put this or a new SRPM on the net right now because I
can't connect to my ISP's ftp server from my work.
- Add URL tag (kinda strange but the best I could do)
- make configfile %%config
- add comments to file removal part of %%install
Can this be approved now?
rpmlint output of mock build: 1) W: libgsf113 conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ld.so.conf.d/libgsf113-i386.conf 2) E: libgsf113 configure-without-libdir-spec 3) W: libgsf113-devel no-provides libgsf-devel 4) E: libgsf113-devel description-line-too-long Libraries, headers, and support files necessary to compile applications using libgsf. 5) E: libgsf113-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1) - the rpm is correct, warning ignorable - should not be modified by user 2) - error is necessary due to necessary installation location 3) - the package is correct, it shouls not provide libgsf-devel 4) - A simple line break would correct it. 5) - I don't know what is triggering that, I suspect it is ignorable * Package named according to guidelines - with library version so as to not conflict with core package. * Spec File matches base package name * Package meets packaging guidelines * Package has OSS license, properly packaged in %doc * Spec file in legible american english * source md5sum matches upstream * builds on i386 (fc4) * No improper BuildRequires * No stray language files * Proper use of ldconfig * Package owns all files/directories it should * No dupes in %files * Contains code * Proper files in -devel package * Approved -=- Stating the obvious here: Should a new enough stable release of libgsf be released before FC5 release, please be sure to remove this package from fc5. When a stable release is released, please update in FC4 (and FC3 if you target that) libgsf113-1.13.3-3 Has been committed to CVS and successfully build. The difference with the last specfile is that I've added a README.fedora to the devel package. Closing as next release. Normalize summary field for easy parsing |