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 626458
Summary: | Review Request: libmnetutil - A C++ library providing various network utilities | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kalev Lember <kalevlember> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, kalevlember, notting, pahan |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kalevlember:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc12 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-10-11 11:52:28 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: | 626446 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 626462, 626699, 626701, 626726 |
Description
Peter Lemenkov
2010-08-23 15:36:13 UTC
New build: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/libmnetutil.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc12.src.rpm - Properly placed examples - Changed descriptions Finally cleaning up NotReady flag here. Taking for review. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2518427 I have a few initial comments, but none of them is a review blocker. Just some small things you might want to change before importing the package into git. How did upstream react to the libmnetutil-0001-Remove-bundled-udns.patch? Looks like the patch removes all of the udns source files. If upstream doesn't want to take the patch like this, another option would be to rework it so that the configure script gets an option to choose between bundled or system copy of udns. > %package devel ... > Requires: pkgconfig In Fedora 12+ rpmbuild generates the pkgconfig dependency automatically for subpackages which ship .pc files. It is however needed for EL5 and older. So if you only intend to package it in Fedora, you might want to remove that line. > %package devel > ... > Requires: automake > ... > %files devel > ... > %{_datadir}/aclocal/*.m4 A recent change in packaging guidelines suggests to use multiple directory ownership to avoid dragging in other packages which wouldn't be otherwise needed for normal functioning. I guess automake would fall under that category too. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function. Fedora review libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc12.src.rpm 2010-10-06 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint libmnetutil \ libmnetutil-devel \ libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc15.src.rpm \ libmnetutil-debuginfo-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc15.i686.rpm libmnetutil.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Minisip -> Mini sip, Mini-sip, Minister libmnetutil.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minisip -> mini sip, mini-sip, minister libmnetutil.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmnetutil.so.0.0.0 /lib/libm.so.6 libmnetutil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Minisip -> Mini sip, Mini-sip, Minister libmnetutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minisip -> mini sip, mini-sip, minister libmnetutil.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libmnetutil-0.8.0.tar.bz2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. + Rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + Spec file name matches the base package name + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The package contains license file (COPYING.LIB) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Following instructions in the spec file to check out sources from upstream svn repo produce matching tarball. 0e0de89d8c816f7cc287816d95769230 libmnetutil-0.8.0.tar.bz2 + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly + ldconfig is properly called in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code, or permissable content. n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc don't affect the package + Header files are in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static + Library files that end in .so are in -devel package + -devel requires the fully versioned base + Package doesn't contain any libtool .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Looks good, but take a look at comment #3 before importing into Fedora. APPROVED Thanks, Kalev! I was just going to ask you about reviewing a couple of my packages in exchange :) Ok, regarding your comments: 1. No I didnt' contact upstream yet, but I'll do it in a next weeks, I promise. 2. I have no plans for EL-5 yet, but I'd prefer to keep pkgconfig as a dependency (someone may consider grab my spec-file and rebuild with old rpmbuild - this might confuse him) 3. Likewise - I personally prefer to add dependency on directory owner instead of claiming ownership. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libnetmutil Short Description: Minisip library providing various C++ network classes Owners: peter Branches: f12 f13 f14 el6 InitialCC: WARNING: Requested package name libnetmutil doesn't match bug summary libmnetutil Can you fix the bug summary and/or the package name in the request? New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libmnetutil Short Description: Minisip library providing various C++ network classes Owners: peter Branches: f12 f13 f14 el6 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc14 libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc13 libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc12 Closing the ticket as the packages are built and updates submitted; furthermore it's also easier to check bugzilla dependencies if this ticket is closed. libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. libmnetutil-0.8.0-0.2.20100629svn3775.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |