[Bug 192564] Review Request: uuid
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue May 23 20:24:17 UTC 2006
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: uuid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192564
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-05-23 16:16 EST -------
I think the license is essentially the MIT license:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
It's probably a better fit than "Distributable".
rpmlint, as usual, finds something to complain about:
E: uuid binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/uuid ['/usr/lib64']
W: uuid unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libuuid.so.14.0.22
W: uuid-c++ unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libuuid++.so.14.0.22
W: uuid-c++ no-documentation
W: uuid-dce unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libuuid_dce.so.14.0.22
W: uuid-dce no-documentation
W: uuid-dce-devel no-documentation
W: uuid-pgsql no-documentation
W: uuid-php no-documentation
The no-documentation ones are OK. The unstripped object warnings are
problematic; I don't know what to do about those. The rpath problem can be made
to go away by adding:
BuildRequires: libtool
then changing the make line to:
make LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool %{?_smp_mflags}
and then adding this after the make install:
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.a
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
? license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
fdfe93bc134dfb73814456c3b444dda1 uuid-1.4.2.tar.gz
fdfe93bc134dfb73814456c3b444dda1 uuid-1.4.2.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper. (I didn't realize you could list them in the
subpackage declarations.)
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint complains of rpath and unstripped libraries.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called where necessary. (Some
libraries are internal to Perl, PHP, pgsql, etc. so ldconfig is not called for
those packages.) Unversioned libraries are in -devel subpackages.
* packages are not relocatable.
* own the directories they creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is present and all tests seem to pass.
* scriptlets present and quite sane.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in -devel subpackages.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list