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 188458
Summary: | Review Request: libassetml - xml resource database library | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Hans de Goede <hdegoede> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Wart <wart> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | wart | ||||
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: | 2006-04-15 14:10:42 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 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Hans de Goede
2006-04-10 09:10:06 UTC
Created attachment 127540 [details]
The specfile.
It looks like there's an extra 'f' in the Source0: url: 'offset' -> 'ofset'. Also, the following line generates an error during the build. It seems that the info 'dir' file is not created during 'make install': rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_infodir}/dir Thanks for catching the double ff. The other one is strange I added the rm because on my system the build did create a dir file, anyways I've changed the rm to an "rm -f" so it will work in either case. New version, SRPM this time at: http://home.zonnet.nl/jwrdegoede/libassetml-1.2.1-1.src.rpm Thanks for the SRPM. It builds fine now, but with a few 'differ in signedness' warnings on FC-4. I'll post a full review later tonight. I notice there is some inconsistency in the version numbers for this package. The package itself is version 1.2.1; The .so is named libassetml.so.0.0.0; The -devel include directory is libassetml-1.0. This may prove problematic when future versions of libassetml are released with incompatible APIs. rpmlint output: E: libassetml-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libassetml-1.2.1/src/tools/assetml-query.c MUST ==== * Package and spec named appropriately * GPL license ok. License file included in base package * Spec file legible and in Am. English * Source matches upstream 4b10fd0fb8e00a4fb526665413479516 libassetml-1.2.1.tar.gz * Compiles and builds on FC-4 i386, FC-4 x86_64 * No excessive or disallowed BR: * Locales handled correctly * ldconfig called in %post/%postun correctly * Not relocatable * No duplicate %files * build root cleaned in %clean and at start of %install * headers, pkgconfig files, and unsuffixed shlib in -devel * -devel requires base * No .la archives * No .desktop file necessary * Contains code, not content SHOULDFIX ========= * This isn't a blocker, but you can get rid of the rpmlint warning by removing the execute permission bit on the offending source file in %prep. * -devel owns %datadir/gnome. However, it seems that almost 20 other packages also claim to own this directory, so this isn't a blocker. Perhaps you can restrict the ownership to %datadir/gnome/help/%name? Since there are no blockers, consider this APPROVED (In reply to comment #5) > SHOULDFIX > ========= > * This isn't a blocker, but you can get rid of the rpmlint warning by > removing the execute permission bit on the offending source file in %prep. > Thanks for the tip I'll fix that before importing, and thanks for the review! > * -devel owns %datadir/gnome. However, it seems that almost 20 other packages > also claim to own this directory, so this isn't a blocker. Perhaps you > can restrict the ownership to %datadir/gnome/help/%name? > Erm, since there is no logical package to depend on for this dir your suggestion could lead to unowned dirs which is worse then having dirs owned by many. Imported and build. |