Bug 175623
Summary: | Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Konstantin Ryabitsev <icon> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, i, j |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | i:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-07-07 21:50:18 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
Konstantin Ryabitsev
2005-12-13 14:47:15 UTC
Build failed, devel x86_64 checking for working tcpd.h... no configure: error: tcpd development libraries missing Adding back my comment that was lost in the crash: ------- Additional Comments From tibbs.edu 2006-06-10 16:44 EST ------- icon, are you still interested in packaging this? I have to say, the description is terribly non-descriptive. Even the upstream website doesn't fother to say what Z39.50 is. Perhaps adding the following (cribbed from wikipedia) would help a bit: Z39.50 is a client server protocol for searching and retrieving information from remote computer databases. This does, however, properly build in mock (x86_64, development). If icon is still interested and updates to the current version (2.1.20), I could go ahead with a review of this. BTW, this package has rpath problems on x86_64. This seems to be fixed by the usual technique of addingg BR: libtool and then adding LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool on the make line. I have no idea if this breaks anything. There seems to be an included test suite but no %check section in the spec. Yep, I'm still alive. I'll take a look at it briefly. http://linux.duke.edu/~icon/misc/fe/yaz.spec http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/yaz-2.1.22-1.src.rpm * Tue Jun 20 2006 Konstantin Ryabitsev <icon> - 2.1.22-1 - Version 2.1.22 - Libtoolize correctly - BuildRequire libxslt - BuildRequire tcp_wrappers - Enable pth in configure - Add %%check routine Builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) and rpmlint is quiet. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 2d401ea471a87e7a056ea2df9e2d9d14 yaz-2.1.22.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (x86_64, development). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libyaz-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libyazthread.so.2()(64bit) libyaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libexslt.so.0()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libwrap.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxslt.so.1()(64bit) libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libyazthread.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libyaz-devel-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm libyaz-devel = 2.1.22-1.fc6 = /bin/sh libxml2-devel libyaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6 libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libyazthread.so.2()(64bit) openssl-devel readline-devel yaz-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm yaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6 = libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libexslt.so.0()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libhistory.so.5()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libwrap.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxslt.so.1()(64bit) libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called and unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it 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 pass: =================== All 21 tests passed =================== * scriptlets present and OK (ldconfig calls) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers present in -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED This package has been in the repo for a couple of weeks now; any reason this bug hasn't been closed? Just lack of attention. :) Closing, thanks. Please create EPEL branches: Branches: EL-4, EL-5 done Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: yaz New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku Git done (by process-git-requests). |