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 210187 (libassa)
Summary: | Review Request: libassa - C++ Object-Oriented network library | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Vladislav Grinchenko <3rdshift> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | ||||||
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: | 2006-11-19 11:41:23 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, 210189 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Vladislav Grinchenko
2006-10-10 17:45:50 UTC
The library's home page is: http://libassa.sourceforge.net/ It has been distributed as RPM packages for RedHat and Fedora for a number of years. I want to ease end-user installation with `yum' via Fedora extras. This is my first package and I seek a sponsor. > %define debug_package %{nil} This must be removed. Disabling debuginfo packages is the wrong thing to do. > %define rel 2 > %define disttag fc5 > %define release %{rel}.%{disttag} Overused macroism. %rel is used only once in the entire spec file. %disttag serves no purpose since %{?dist} ought to be used, and "Release" tag defines %release. Use just Release: 2%{?dist} and expand %rel in the Source tag. > Packager: Vladislav Grinchenko (vld.net) > Vendor: 3rdShift, Inc. Set these always via ~/.rpmmacros instead. When set in a spec file, anybody who would built non-working binary rpms would pretend that they are from you. Further, the build system shall set these. > Source: %{name}-%{version}-%{rel}.tar.gz Download URL is missing. > Prefix: /usr Doubtful. If this package shall be made reloctable, at least use %{prefix} here instead of /usr. > BuildRoot: /tmp/%{name}-%{version}-root Not the recommended buildroot from the packaging guidelines. > %package devel > Summary: Headers for developing programs with libassa library > Group: Development/Libraries Missing "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" > CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" \ > ./configure $ARCH_FLAGS \ --prefix=%{prefix} \ Use the %configure macro instead of "./configure". It sets many other parameters beyond --prefix, e.g. --libdir and --datadir. > %install > if [ -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ]; then rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT; fi This is neither necessary nor safe. Just use "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". > # new redhat versions don't use .la > rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la Don't mix %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > %post > %preun > %postun With these scriptlets, the package is missing: Requires(post): /sbin/install-info /sbin/ldconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig > %postun > /sbin/ldconfig > > #=============================================================================== > # clenup section > #=============================================================================== Don't place any "#-----" comments directly after scriptlet sections. They are included in the binary rpms. Query your binary rpms with "rpm --query --scripts libassa" to see! > %files > %defattr(-, root, root) > > %doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog INSTALL NEWS README Verify whether the INSTALL file is relevant to RPM package users. If it's the standard FSF file, it's irrevelant. > %{prefix}/lib/*.so.* This will be wrong on platforms where the library must be installed in %{_libdir} instead, so use %{_libdir} instead of %{prefix}/lib Same for -devel package. > %files devel > %defattr(-, root, root, 755) Any particular reason why %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not enough? > %{prefix}/bin/* Use %{_bindir} > %{prefix}/include/assa-3.4 Use %{_includedir} > %{prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/*.pc > %{prefix}/lib/*.so Use %{_libdir} and "Requires: pkgconfig" > #%doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog INSTALL NEWS README > %{prefix}/share/doc/* > %{prefix}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/* Files marked as %doc are included automatically in an internal _docdir path, so it's weird to see files included here again. Further, %{prefix}/share is %{_datadir}, so prefer it. > %files doc Missing %defattr(-,root,root,-) > %doc doc/html > %changelog > * Wed Jul 19 2006 Vladislav Grinchenko <vlg.net> > - disabled tests and examples in configure step As you add more changelog entries, don't forget to add the package version and release to every entry. Michael, thanks for your comments. I have made all of the recommended modifications, rebuilt the package on my local system and verified that it at least builds and installs with no errors. Please, find the latest version of the spec file, assa-3.4.2-2.spec, at the aforementioned Spec URL. thanks for your detailed comments, -Vlad I have updated (Fri Oct 13 22:26 EDT 2006) both the .spec and .src.rpm again. It should be sufficient enough to get going with the acceptance process. Can someone sponsor this project? thanks, -Vlad Vladislav, it is an unfortunate fact that our current procedures are geared more towards someone who will maintain several packages and generally participate in the process of reviewing other packages and general project maintenance. This leaves out upstream maintainers who would simply like their software to be easily available to Fedora users. One proposed solution to this involves finding an existing Fedora maintainer who would like to co-maintain your package. Let me see if I can help with that. I will post a message to fedora-extras-list and see if anyone is interested. Created attachment 138539 [details]
improved libassa.spec
* Mon Oct 16 2006 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt[AT]users.sf.net> - 3.4.2-3
- disable rpaths
- disable static libs
- build tests and add %%check section for them
- BR doxygen and fix inclusion of HTML files
- execute /sbin/ldconfig in scriptlets directly
- don't use %%makeinstall
* libassa-doc package built empty, missing BuildRequires doxygen
* -devel package contained the same %doc files as main package due to
unclean inclusion of %_docdir paths
* "make check" fails in one self-test -- see %check section of the spec!
* minor spec fixes - visible with diff ;)
Michael, thanks for further editing of the spec file. I applied your changes and uploaded new versions of both the spec file and SRPM to the URL above. I don't want to deal with 'make check' for now 'cause its success highly depends on various services available to the build host. thanks, -Vlad Okay, 3.4.2-3 is good then and APPROVED. Just notice that if you keep re-adding things like "summary-ended-with-dot" or re-naming the spec file (ought to be %{name}.spec => libassa.spec), you won't manage to make rpmlint shut up about things like that: ;-) $ rpmlint libassa-3.4.2-3.src.rpm E: libassa invalid-spec-name assa.spec W: libassa mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 38) But this is not crucial and could be fixed in CVS any time. [...] Re-running the sighands_test suite consecutively makes Test 5 sometimes PASS and sometimes FAIL, which indicates that there's a problem somewhere. === Test 5 failed: USR1 rcvd signalscount != 3 === === Test 5 failed: USR1 rcvd signalscount != 3 === === Test 5 failed: "C" rcvd signalscount != 3 === Michael, thanks for the APPROVAL. I have renamed assa.spec to libassa.spec in CVS to take care of the error and ran 'sed -i -e 's/\t/ /g' libassa.spec' to fix the warnings. Both the spec and the SRPM have been updated accordingly. Thanks for your help! -Vlad |