[Bug 243147] Review Request: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL - Cross Compiled SDL Library targeted at arm-gp2x-linux

Mon Aug 6 15:11:16 UTC 2007

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: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL - Cross Compiled SDL Library targeted at arm-gp2x-linux

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243147

------- Additional Comments From kevin at tigcc.ticalc.org  2007-08-06 11:11 EST -------
MUST Items:
+ rpmlint output:
  + SRPM:
    W: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL invalid-license LGPLv2+
    This is the F7 rpmlint being out of date. :-)
    E: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL configure-without-libdir-spec
    This one's OK for a cross library. (There's no 64-bit GP2X ;-).)
  + noarch RPM:
    W: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL 
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/include/SDL/SDL_cpuinfo.h
    (and more like this). OK because this is a cross-development package, and 
these are all target development files. It would make no sense to make a 
separate devel vs. runtime part because we aren't going to run ARM GP2X 
binaries on i386/x86_64/ppc/... Fedora anyway.
    E: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL 
library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libSDL-1.2.so.0.7.2
    E: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL 
library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libSDL-1.2.so.0.7.2
    OK, as these are target libraries which aren't even in the ldconfig search 
path. The required symlinks are already there anyway.
    W: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL invalid-license LGPLv2+
    Again, the F7 rpmlint being out of date.
    E: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL 
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libSDLmain.a
    E: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL 
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libSDL.a
    E: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL 
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libSDL-1.2.so.0.7.2
    Again, this is OK because those are target files.
    W: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-gp2x-linux
    This one's OK too for a cross-library package.
+ named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ spec file name matches base package name
+ Packaging Guidelines:
  + License LGPLv2+ OK, matches actual license
  + No known patent problems
  + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components
  + Complies with the FHS (with the cross-toolchain exception 
for %{_prefix}/%{target})
  + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires, BuildRequires, Summary, 
Description
  + no non-UTF-8 characters
  + relevant documentation is included
  + It would make no sense to use RPM_OPT_FLAGS here because this is a target 
package, which is built using a cross GCC which won't understand stuff 
like -fstack-protector, and for which x86 -march and -mtune switches definitely 
don't make sense. Thus the omission of RPM_OPT_FLAGS is correct.
  + no -debuginfo package because this is noarch
  + no host static libraries nor .la files
    (I think we can give the target static libraries a pass. This isn't a 
Fedora target, so trying to apply our static library policies to the target 
wouldn't make much sense.)
  + no duplicated system libraries
  + no rpaths (no host executables or libraries at all, I also ran readelf -d 
on the target shared library to make sure and there's no rpath there either)
  + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply
  + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply
  + no GUI programs, so no .desktop file present or needed
  + no timestamp-clobbering file commands
  ! _smp_mflags not used
  + scriptlets are valid
  + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply
  + no conflicts
+ complies with all the legal guidelines
+ COPYING (yes, it's the LGPL, even if it's not named COPYING.LIB) included 
as %doc
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ source matches upstream:
  MD5SUM: 80919ef556425ff82a8555ff40a579a0
  SHA1SUM: 8140de00e73ccdbdee196fa8fd9952ddb3cc75f1
  (This one looks like a pretty pointless exercise given the 380 KB patch 
applied to it, but... ;-) )
+ builds on at least one arch (F7 i386 live system)
+ no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed
+ no missing BR
+ no translations, so translation/locale guidelines don't apply
+ no host shared libraries, so no ldconfig calls needed
+ package not relocatable
+ ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories 
owned by another package)
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ permissions set properly (%defattr present)
+ %clean section present and correct
+ macros used where possible (%configure not used for several reasons, 
including it playing jokes with --target and using host-specific RPM_OPT_FLAGS)
+ no non-code content
+ no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed
+ %doc files not required at runtime
+ no host headers, target headers are OK in this cross-development package
+ no host static libraries, so no -static package needed
+ no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed
+ no host shared libraries, so .so symlink guidelines don't apply
+ no -devel package, so the guideline to require the main package in it doesn't 
apply
+ no .la files
+ no GUI programs, so no .desktop file needed
+ buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install
  (same nitpick about mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as for arm-gp2x-linux-binutils)
+ all filenames are valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:
+ license already included upstream
+ no translations for description and summary provided by upstream
* Skipping mock test.
* Skipping the "all architectures" test, I only have i386.
+ package functions as described:
  The following test program:
  #include <stdlib.h>
  #include <SDL.h>

  int main(void)
  {
    if (SDL_Init(SDL_INIT_AUDIO|SDL_INIT_VIDEO) < 0) {
      fprintf(stderr, "Unable to init SDL: %s\n", SDL_GetError());
      return 1;
    }
    atexit(SDL_Quit);
    return 0;
  }
  compiles and links fine using:
  arm-gp2x-linux-gcc -Wall -Wextra -Os gp2x-sdl-test.c 
`arm-gp2x-linux-sdl-config --cflags --libs` -o gp2x-sdl-test
+ scriptlets are sane
+ no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel 
should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is 
irrelevant
+ no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant
+ no file dependencies

MUST FIX:
* please use _smp_mflags as there's no good reason not to

-- 
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.