[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Request for review: wv2



On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 07:55 +0200, Andreas Bierfert wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Can drop the explicit
> > Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
> > Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
> > as they aren't required (rpm will pick it up automatically).
> 
> True... done :)
> 
> http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wv2-0.2.2-3.src.rpm
> http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wv2.spec

Review:

rpmlint checks:
wv2-0.2.2-3.i386.rpm:
W: wv2 no-version-in-last-changelog
W: wv2
unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libwv2.so.1.0.7.debug
W: wv2 no-soname /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libwv2.so.1.0.7.debug
E: wv2
shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libwv2.so.1.0.7.debug
W: wv2 devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libwv2.so

wv2-devel-0.2.2-3.i386.rpm
W: wv2-devel no-version-in-last-changelog
E: wv2-devel
wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/wv2-devel-0.2.2/escher/escher.html

Bad:

- You're missing version on your changelogs. Well, to be fair, you're
not missing them, you're just not formatting them quite right. Please
put the %{version}-%{release} on the end of the first changelog lines,
not on their own second line.
- You're grabbing %{_libdir}/* in %files. This is bad, because it drags
in static objects, and the debuginfo files. In %files, all you want is:

%{_libdir}/*.so.*

In %files devel, you want:

%{_libdir}/*.so

And you don't want the *.la file in either package. You're trying to get
it, by running "find -type f -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} \;" in %
install, but you fail because its parsing through the source tree, not
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT. You can probably replace it with:

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.la

Since wv2 is only installing one .la file, and all of its libs are going
into %{_libdir}, this should do the trick a little faster.

- devel package is missing %defattr(-,root,root,-)

Good:

- Package meets PackageNamingGuidelines
- spec file matches base package %{name}
- Package meets PackageGuidelines (with exceptions noted in Bad)
- License (LGPL) OK, license in spec matches source, license text
included in %doc
- spec is in American English, is legible
- Sources match upstream
- Package compiles and builds on x86 (FC4)
- Package has no extra BuildRequires
- All necessary BuildRequires present
- No locales in package
- Not relocatable
- All created directories owned by packages
- No duplicate files in %files
- Permissions set properly (for base package, devel is missing defattr)
- Package calls ldconfig properly in post/postun
- clean section present
- macro use is consistent
- package is code not content
- no need for -docs package
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- header files are in -devel (note blocker on .so file)
- devel package requires base package with explicit n = v-r

The blockers are easy to resolve. If you fix them, I'll approve the
fixed spec file.

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]