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 195764
Summary: | Review Request: tcpick | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jarod Wilson <jarod> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | hdegoede, jmp |
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: | 2006-06-20 23:14:29 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: | 193189 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Robert Scheck
2006-06-17 14:54:29 UTC
rpmbuild -v -ba tcpick.spec (on FC4) error: Failed build dependencies: libpcap-devel is needed by tcpick-0.2.1-8.i386 found libpcap-devel-0.9.3-2.i686.rpm on rpm.pbone.net which trigger a huge chain of dependency, obviously this is not the way to go. Where can I find libpcap-devel within extra devel tree? (Bug 193189 say "fixed in CVS") libpcap-devel is currently only in Rawhide (and yes it's fixed in Core CVS): core/development/i386/os/Fedora/RPMS/libpcap-devel-0.9.4-7.i386.rpm An alternative would be just to require /usr/include/pcap.h which is independent of the libpcap-devel split in Rawhide - but I see, what the problem is... versions of FC prior to developmnet/FC6 you have to BuildRequires: libpcap beacuse in all versions prior. the libpcap package had the development files included. to see a sample of how to handle this look at the snort spec file Applied, thanks for pointing me to this example. Fedora packaging guidelines suggest against using %makeinstall unless absolutely necessary. Using 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' is preferred (and as far as I can see, works just fine for this package). I'll do some more formal review tonight... You're right of course, but it works for about 2 years now, but I also could use 4 install lines for the four files instead of moving the files after the '%makeinstall' or 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' when this makes you happy... ;-) Just parroting from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines on the %makeinstall bit. :) Also, how about using '%configure --bindir=%{_sbindir}' instead of using an extra line to move the file? Not a requirement, but results in at least one less line in the spec. Now for the rest of the review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines -- okay * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently -- okay * dist tag is present -- okay * build root is correct -- okay %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * license field matches the actual license -- GPL, okay * license is open source-compatible and license text included in package -- okay * source files match upstream -- okay bb94f2f9ea81aeb645619fbe9b3b9a29 tcpick-0.2.1.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged -- 0.2.1, okay * BuildRequires are proper -- okay * package builds in mock -- okay (fedora development x86_64) * rpmlint is silent -- okay * final provides and requires are sane -- okay tcpick-0.2.1-8.fc6.x86_64.rpm tcpick = 0.2.1-8.fc6 = libpcap.so.0.9.4()(64bit) * no shared libraries are present -- okay * package is not relocatable -- okay * owns the directories it creates -- okay * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't -- okay * no duplicates in %files -- okay * file permissions are appropriate -- okay * %clean is present -- okay * %check is present and all tests pass -- n/a (include the summary from the test suite, if any) * no scriptlets present -- okay * code, not content -- okay * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary -- okay * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package -- okay * no headers -- okay * no pkgconfig files -- okay * no libtool .la droppings -- okay * not a GUI app -- okay * not a web app -- okay Only thing I see that needs to be altered to comply with the packaging guidelines is the use of % makeinstall. Okay these two minor matters have been applied... Excellent, package APPROVED. 11312 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. 11313 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-5-extras succeeded. 11314 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-4-extras succeeded. |