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 223618
Summary: | Review Request: obexftp - Tool to access devices via the OBEX protocol | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | 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: | 2007-01-26 02:33:35 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
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
2007-01-20 21:05:32 UTC
Good: - rpmlint checks return: W: obexftp-python no-documentation W: obexftp-perl no-documentation W: obexftp-devel no-documentation All safe to ignore. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) 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 - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r Looks good, APPROVED. %defattr missing in -perl package Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_...) missing as well. Subpackages should probably be called python-obexftp and perl-obexftp instead of obexftp-* according to package naming guidelines. _obexftp.so.X and _obexftp.so.X.X for a Python extension are probably just cruft, and could be replaced with a plain _obexftp.so. %configure --disable-dependency-tracking would result in cleaner build output and possibly speed up the build. The minimum openobex version this works with is 1.2, making the build dep on openobex-devel versioned (>= 1.2) would save some trouble from people using older distros. Requires: openobex-devel >= 1.2 missing from -devel, see #includes in installed header files. (In reply to comment #3) > Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_...) missing as well. Any... pointers to some docs on that? I've searched through packaging guidelines and there's nothing about that. I only found some old IRC logs mentioning this, but nothing tangible. > Subpackages should probably be called python-obexftp and perl-obexftp instead > of obexftp-* according to package naming guidelines. Perl naming guidelines say that only about CPAN-originated modules. Plus we have lots of other packages named something-perl, for example openbabel (also mine). > _obexftp.so.X and _obexftp.so.X.X for a Python extension are probably just > cruft, and could be replaced with a plain _obexftp.so. I don't know much about python. Are you sure I can do that? > %configure --disable-dependency-tracking would result in cleaner build output > and possibly speed up the build. OK. > The minimum openobex version this works with is 1.2, making the build dep on > openobex-devel versioned (>= 1.2) would save some trouble from people using > older distros. > > Requires: openobex-devel >= 1.2 missing from -devel, see #includes in > installed header files. OK. (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_...) missing as well. > > Any... pointers to some docs on that? Not that I'm aware of. Just copy/paste the line from /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-perl.spec > > Subpackages should probably be called python-obexftp and perl-obexftp > > instead of obexftp-* according to package naming guidelines. > > Perl naming guidelines say that only about CPAN-originated modules. None of the other cases talk anything about where the software originates from, and I don't see why it would make a difference, nor why the general rule wouldn't apply, see Addon packages (general) in naming guidelines. > > _obexftp.so.X and _obexftp.so.X.X for a Python extension are probably just > > cruft, and could be replaced with a plain _obexftp.so. > > I don't know much about python. Are you sure I can do that? Pretty sure. Will need to verify this though. To clarify, I don't consider foo-obexftp vs obexftp-foo for foo={perl,python} a blocker as there are some interpretation differences about the naming guidelines and quite a few packages going either way in the repo. This is something that the packaging committee should work on, and can be fixed later if need be. Regarding _obexftp.so.*.*, a simple "python -c 'import obexftp'" will work with only the *.so present, it doesn't need the *.so.*. And 'find /usr/lib/python2.4 -name "*.so.*"' finds nothing here. So I *guess* it's safe to install the extension just as *.so and drop the links. This is neither a blocker though, but is something upstream could perhaps clarify. OK, included all suggestions except _obexftp.so.*.* renaming in python subpackage. I'll import the package sometime tonight. Thanks for comments, everyone. imported 0.20-2 with the following changelog: - added missing defattr - require openobex-devel > 1.2 - added missing MODULE_COMPAT Requires: to perl subpackage - renamed subpackages to perl/python-obexftp - fixed rpaths Thanks to Toshio for some help with rpaths. Built for devel, FC-6 branch requested. Thanks for the review, Tom. Just in case it wasn't intentional: the package doesn't have a disttag so some manual release tag adjustments will be needed so that the FC-6 and devel builds don't end up with identical NEVR's. I noticed that while trying to build for FC-6 and fixed it. |