Bug 171314
Summary: | Review Request: gtkhtml36 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michael A. Peters <mpeters> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Paul Howarth <paul> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | 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: | 3.6.2-4 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-04-30 11:52:32 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
Michael A. Peters
2005-10-20 17:53:15 UTC
What needs this? Applications that have not yet ported to gtkhtml-3.8 I'll respond in more detail on the Extras list. Is it possible to get this reviewed? I just verified that it does still build in mock. I've got another package that has some bugs when built against the fc5 version of gtkhtml - that are not present if built against gtkhtml-3.6 Not sure about the naming convention for this one. compat- packages usually build without -devel packages and are there for runtime rather than build-time compatibility with older apps. The only compat-*-devel packages I can find in FC5 or FE5 are the wxGTK packages. For build-time compatibility, a name like gtkhtml36 would seem more sensible, but that could cause confusion with the main package being gtkhtml3 and hence giving the appearance of being "older". However, this does meet the package naming guidelines, which the compat- package doesn't. Another thing: are the static libraries really needed? Minor nit: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/libgtkhtml-3.6.so.18 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/libgtkhtml-3.6.so.18.0.2 I'll remove the static libraries - they are not needed. With respect to the name - core uses compat-* compat-db.i386 4.2.52-4 core compat-gcc-32.i386 3.2.3-55.fc5 core compat-gcc-32-c++.i386 3.2.3-55.fc5 core compat-gcc-32-g77.i386 3.2.3-55.fc5 core compat-libf2c-32.i386 3.2.3-55.fc5 core compat-libgcc-296.i386 2.96-135 core compat-libstdc++-296.i386 2.96-135 core compat-openldap.i386 2.3.19_2.2.29-4 core compat-readline43.i386 4.3-2.1 core compat-slang.i386 1.4.9-27.2.1 core readline, gcc, libstdc++ are examples where it uses compat-oldname-version as the package name. With respect to the devel package - it obviously isn't needed for runtime use, but it may be useful for building software that either doesn't work with new gtkhtml - or for software where the port to the new gtkhtml3 isn't as good as the older version. (In reply to comment #5) > I'll remove the static libraries - they are not needed. > With respect to the name - core uses compat-* > > compat-db.i386 4.2.52-4 core > compat-gcc-32.i386 3.2.3-55.fc5 core > compat-gcc-32-c++.i386 3.2.3-55.fc5 core > compat-gcc-32-g77.i386 3.2.3-55.fc5 core > compat-libf2c-32.i386 3.2.3-55.fc5 core > compat-libgcc-296.i386 2.96-135 core > compat-libstdc++-296.i386 2.96-135 core > compat-openldap.i386 2.3.19_2.2.29-4 core > compat-readline43.i386 4.3-2.1 core > compat-slang.i386 1.4.9-27.2.1 core Note that none of the above have a -devel package; that's what I was getting at regarding runtime and build-time compatibility. > With respect to the devel package - it obviously isn't needed for runtime use, > but it may be useful for building software that either doesn't work with new > gtkhtml - or for software where the port to the new gtkhtml3 isn't as good as > the older version. Yes, I get that - after all that's why this package is here. The package naming guidelines say this: Multiple packages with the same base name For many reasons, it is sometimes advantageous to keep multiple versions of a package in Fedora Core and Fedora Extras, to be installed simultaneously. When doing so, the package name should reflect this fact. The most recent version of a package should use the base name with no versions, and all other addons should note their version in the name. The exception to this are kernel and kernel-module-* packages, which can have multiple versions installed concurrently with the same base name (but different versions). Example: openssl occasionally has multiple versions in Fedora for backwards compatibility. The most current version of openssl has Name: openssl The previous version of openssl has Name: openssl096b Note that we do not use delimiters in the name in this situation, we remove the period '.' from the version number and attach it to the name. To be honest I think that the name you have is better but the precedents and naming guidelines suggest otherwise. OK - I changed the name to gtkhtml36 and fixed the rpmlint error and removed static libs. As soon as my mock build finishes, I'll upload the fixed src.rpm and spec file. New src.rpm and spec file: http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/gtkhtml36-3.6.2-2.fc5.src.rpm http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/gtkhtml36.spec Review: - rpmlint OK (only warning is gtkhtml36-devel no-documentation, ignorable) - package and spec naming OK - package meets guidelines - license is part GPL, part LGPL; spec matches, GPL text included, LGPL text missing - spec file written in English and is legible - sources match upstream - package builds OK in mock for FC5 (i386) and installs OK with gtkhtml3 present - BR's OK - %find_lang used appropriately - /sbin/ldconfig called properly in %post and %postun - not relocatable - no duplicate files - permissions OK, %defattr used properly - %clean section present and correct - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs - docs don't affect runtime - header files, pkgconfig file, and .so file properly placed in -devel subpackage - devel package requires same release of base package - libtool and static archives removed - library package, not app, so no desktop file - scriptlets are sane - Compared with gtkhtml3.spec revision 1.30 in CVS; changes are limited to those mentioned in %changelog Needswork: - include COPYING.LIB as %doc - Package needs to own %{_libdir}/gtkhtml (gtkhtml3 might not be installed) Suggestions: - Include BUGS as %doc - Use FE-standard buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Since patch2 is neither included in the SRPM nor applied, is there any point having it mentioned in the spec at all? Really picky nits: - "etc" (in summary for -devel) is an abbreviation and should be "etc." - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir} better written as $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} since %{_libdir}'s expansion always starts with "/" Thanks for the excellent review. I made all of the suggested and mandatory changes: http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/gtkhtml36-3.6.2-3.fc5.src.rpm http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/gtkhtml36.spec (In reply to comment #10) > Thanks for the excellent review. > I made all of the suggested and mandatory changes: > > http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/gtkhtml36-3.6.2-3.fc5.src.rpm > http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/gtkhtml36.spec Approved. |