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 221175
Summary: | Review Request: libisofs - A library to create ISO 9660 disk images | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jesse Keating <jkeating> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | dcantrell, lemenkov, redhat-bugzilla |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | gwync:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-01-15 15:44:39 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
Jesse Keating
2007-01-02 18:58:35 UTC
- All build dependencies are spurious - "-n libisofs-devel" could be replaced by just "devel" in devel's %package and %description, and libisofs by %{name} in -devel main pkg dependency - Summary: s/A library/Library/ - Unowned dir /usr/include/libisofs - Add CONTRIBUTORS to %doc - Quite a few executable permissions in -debuginfo source files - Dubious Cflags in *.pc, should be -I${includedir}/libisofs? - Is the libburn dependency really needed in the main package? - Bad grammar in %description: "libisofs the library to ...", dunno if the last sentence of it is needed, it's subject to bitrot (In reply to comment #1) > - All build dependencies are spurious Sorry, libburn-devel is not, but others apparently are. (In reply to comment #1) > - All build dependencies are spurious Ah, probably carryover from when the package was built in libburn. > - "-n libisofs-devel" could be replaced by just "devel" in devel's %package and > %description, and libisofs by %{name} in -devel main pkg dependency Whoops, more carry over from previous package. > - Summary: s/A library/Library/ Fixed. > - Unowned dir /usr/include/libisofs Hrm, I assumed that it would pick up ownership of that since it was creating the dir, my bad. > - Add CONTRIBUTORS to %doc Hurray for new files. > - Quite a few executable permissions in -debuginfo source files This is a complaint with upstream that I've asked them to fix. Is this really a problem that I should chmod the source? > - Dubious Cflags in *.pc, should be -I${includedir}/libisofs? Upstream issue, I'll ask them to fix it for the next release. > - Is the libburn dependency really needed in the main package? I was told yes, but I'll clarify. > - Bad grammar in %description: "libisofs the library to ...", dunno if the last > sentence of it is needed, it's subject to bitrot Yeah, this was their upstream content. http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libisofs-0.2.3-2.src.rpm Spec url is the same. (In reply to comment #3) > > - Quite a few executable permissions in -debuginfo source files > This is a complaint with upstream that I've asked them to fix. Is this > really a problem that I should chmod the source? Well, it took you many more keystrokes to ask that question than fixing it would have taken... :). Why not? Don't we want proper permissions for all installed files? > > - Dubious Cflags in *.pc, should be -I${includedir}/libisofs? > Upstream issue, I'll ask them to fix it for the next release. Unless I'm missing something, I think it should be patched in this package. Unless of course you prefer waiting for the next upstream release before continuing the review. > > - Is the libburn dependency really needed in the main package? > I was told yes, but I'll clarify. Looks spurious to me. Nothing is linked against libburn, nor it is dlopened, and I don't see anything else in libburn that would be a candidate for explaining the dependency. Caveat: I haven't tried actually using this package for anything. (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > > > - Quite a few executable permissions in -debuginfo source files > > This is a complaint with upstream that I've asked them to fix. Is this > > really a problem that I should chmod the source? > > Well, it took you many more keystrokes to ask that question than fixing it would > have taken... :). Why not? Don't we want proper permissions for all installed > files? I'd rather see it fixed upstream. I'll "fix" it if needbe, but this really doesn't hurt anything. > > > - Dubious Cflags in *.pc, should be -I${includedir}/libisofs? > > Upstream issue, I'll ask them to fix it for the next release. > > Unless I'm missing something, I think it should be patched in this package. > Unless of course you prefer waiting for the next upstream release before > continuing the review. As I prefer it to be fixed upstream, I'll either get them to do another release, or at least generate the patch based on an upstream source fix. > > > - Is the libburn dependency really needed in the main package? > > I was told yes, but I'll clarify. > > Looks spurious to me. Nothing is linked against libburn, nor it is dlopened, > and I don't see anything else in libburn that would be a candidate for > explaining the dependency. Caveat: I haven't tried actually using this package > for anything. I should have something more for you tomorrow after discussing with upstream. I'm just playing package monkey here. http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libisofs-0.2.4-1.src.rpm New upstream tarball (emailed to me, they haven't posted it on their website yet, I"ll wait for that before importing/building). This should resolve the remaining issues. Upstream 0.2.4 tarball is available, but it's not quite the same as the copy included in 0.2.4-1 SRPM, lib micro version has changed. Upstream URLs changed: libburn -> libburnia, libburn-download -> libburnia-download I think the doxygen docs belong to -devel rather than the main package. The dependency on libburn is still there. Yeah, I noticed he changed a few things in the tarball, this srpm uses the now upstream one. Dep on libburn is because libisofs can actually make a call to libburn I'm told. Moving the docs to devel. http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libisofs-0.2.4-2.src.rpm (In reply to comment #8) > Dep on libburn is because libisofs can actually make a call to libburn I'm told. I've been told that a few times here too, but I'm still too thick to understand how does that happen. Anyway, I won't block the package on that, but suggest finding out the real details and fixing in future package revisions if applicable. Approved. Built, asking for FC-6 branch. Added to owners.list too. Please add 'denis' as a co-owner of this module. Please provide the bugzilla name. denis Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libisofs New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: robert cvs done. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libisofs New Branches: epel7 Owners: robert Git done (by process-git-requests). |