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 181369
Summary: | Review Request: libedit - The NetBSD Editline library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michael J Knox <michael> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | John Mahowald <jpmahowald> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 4 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-04-29 22:37:19 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 |
Description
Michael J Knox
2006-02-13 18:37:07 UTC
I forgot to mention that this is my first package and that I am seeking a sponors. Thanks! Naming Guidlines say post release snapshots are release.alpha. In your case, Release would be 1.%{snap}cvs%{?dist} rpmlint and the qa script found these: Needs work: * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: PackageReviewGuidelines) * The package contains libtool archive files (*.la) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#StaticLibraries) W: libedit non-standard-group System/Libraries W: libedit-devel non-standard-group Development/C The group specified in your spec file is not valid. The closest match in rpm's GROUPS file is System Environment/Libraries for both. W: libedit incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.9-20060103cvs 2.9-20060103cvs.1.fc5 Your last entry in %changelog contains a version that is not coherent with the current version of your package. E: libedit library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libedit.so.0.0.17 E: libedit library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libedit.so.0.0.17 This package contains a library and provides no %post or %postun scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. W: libedit-debuginfo objdump-failed Executing objdump on this file failed, all checks could not be run. Not sure about this one. The debuginfo package seems to have been made correctly. Thanks for the review! Below is the modified spec and srpm. With regards to the license, none is distributed (as in an actual COPYING file or license text) with the code. However, the code is licensed under the NetBSD BSD license, so I have suppled a libedit.COPYING that contains the license text as it is found on the NetBSD website (http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/redistribution.html). I hope this is OK. Package has had a small bump in cvs version. Again, thanks for the review. http://www.knox.net.nz/fedora_extras/libedit.spec http://www.knox.net.nz/fedora_extras/libedit-2.9-1.20060213cvs.src.rpm You are only required to included a file with the license text if the source archive includes it. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines One can't tell if the authors really agree to the exact license text. They say berkley style so you can specify License: BSD, but remove the license text. Then talk to the authors about including the license text. Why BuildRequires: gpm-devel? I can't figure that one out. Don't put the snap maro in the change log, use the exact number. That will get updated, and you want the change log to remain the same. Going through the usual checklist is pretty good: - rpmlint checks return: W: libedit-debuginfo objdump-failed not critical - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (BSD) OK We don't know what the text should be though. - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r Fixed up as per your comments. http://www.knox.net.nz/fedora_extras/libedit.spec http://www.knox.net.nz/fedora_extras/libedit-2.9-2.20060213cvs.src.rpm upstream has been contacted RE license file. Thanks again for the review. 2.9-2 builds fine. APPROVED. Apply for cvsextras in the account system, I'll sponsor. done... Thanks! |