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 190939
Summary: | Review Request: daap-sharp | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Brian Pepple <bdpepple> | ||||||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Chris Weyl <cweyl> | ||||||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | tjb | ||||||||
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: | 2006-05-26 19:53:47 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, 190940 | ||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Brian Pepple
2006-05-06 21:51:37 UTC
MUSTS: - rpmlint checks return (devel/i386): [build@zeus result]$ rpmlint daap-sharp-0.3.3-1.i386.rpm E: daap-sharp no-binary E: daap-sharp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: daap-sharp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/daap-sharp/daap-sharp.dll.config W: daap-sharp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/daap-sharp.pc [build@zeus result]$ rpmlint daap-sharp-0.3.3-1.src.rpm E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPL) OK, matches source, included text in %doc - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream 53feead0f3ef75cf5e34cbb4f1d37f30 daap-sharp-0.3.3.tar.gz 53feead0f3ef75cf5e34cbb4f1d37f30 daap-sharp-0.3.3.tar.gz.srpm - package compiles on devel (i386) BAD: package fails to compile in mock on FC-5/x86_64 (and not ExcludeArch'ed): RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/daap-sharp-0.3.3-1-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/daap-sharp Most likely due to this in %files: %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} Why not use %{_libdir}/%{name} instead? In fact, why not use %{_libdir} everywhere %{_prefix}/lib is used in the spec? - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - 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 BAD: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package SHOULD: - why not include AUTHORS, ChangeLog, README, etc, in %doc? - why not include the samples in %doc? (In reply to comment #1) > > BAD: package fails to compile in mock on FC-5/x86_64 (and not ExcludeArch'ed): > RPM build errors: > File not found: > /var/tmp/daap-sharp-0.3.3-1-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/daap-sharp > Most likely due to this in %files: > %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} > Why not use %{_libdir}/%{name} instead? In fact, why not use %{_libdir} > everywhere %{_prefix}/lib is used in the spec? > BAD: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package > The reasons for using %{_prefix}/lib and not having a -devel package are explained on the wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono Chris, Could you attach the build log for the mock failure on FC-5/x86_64, so I can check to see why it failed? Created attachment 128801 [details]
fedora-5-x86_64-core buildlog
Buildlog from mock for x86_64 / FC-5.
Comment on attachment 128801 [details]
fedora-5-x86_64-core buildlog
Wrong build log. This is for perl-Test-Cmd.
Created attachment 128802 [details]
_correct_ x86_64 / FC-5 build.log
(11:11:44) jima: cweyl: "due to scheduling difficulties, monday has been
extended through wednesday."
Created attachment 128810 [details]
development / x86_64 build.log
As requested....
Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp-0.3.3-2.src.rpm * Tue May 9 2006 Brian Pepple <bdpepple> - 0.3.3-2 - Add patch to fix build on x86_64. This should hopefully fix the build for development. FC5 will still fail on x86_64, due to a problem with avahi-sharp, though that will be addressed with avahi-sharp-0.6.9-9. Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.src.rpm * Tue May 16 2006 Brian Pepple <bdpepple> - 0.3.3-3 - Add devel package for *.pc file. - Add Req on mono-core. - Use cleaner URL. Sorry for the delay. Good: - rpmlint checks return: daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.src.rpm E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm E: daap-sharp no-binary E: daap-sharp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: daap-sharp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/daap-sharp/daap-sharp.dll.configdaap-sharp-debuginfo-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm daap-sharp-devel-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm W: daap-sharp-devel no-documentation All errors and warnings expected for mono packages. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary 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 - devel requires base package n-v-r Not a must, but why not: - include AUTHORS, ChangeLog, README, etc, in %doc? - include the samples in %doc? APPROVED. Built for FC-5 & devel. Thanks for the review. |