Bug 188090
Summary: | Review Request: gpsd | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Matthew Truch <matt> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kevin Fenzi <kevin> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fdc |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | 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: | 2006-04-13 22:42:14 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
Matthew Truch
2006-04-05 22:33:30 UTC
A review: See Below - Rpmlint output. OK - Package name. OK - Spec file name matches. OK - Package guidelines. OK - Licsense. (BSD) OK - License field matches in spec. OK - License included in files OK - Spec in american english OK - Spec legible See below- Md5sum of source from upstream OK - Compiles and builds on one arch at least. See below - All required buildrequires included? OK - Ldconfig in post/postun if including libs. OK - Owns all directories it creates. OK - No duplicate files in %files listing. OK - Permissions on files correct. OK - Clean section correct. OK - Macros consistant. OK - Code not content. OK - Header files/libs in a devel package. OK - .so files in devel package. OK - Devel package requires base package. OK - No .la files. OK - .desktop file if a GUI app OK - Doesn't own any files/dirs that are already owned by others. Items needing attention: 1. md5sum's of the upstream source don't seem to match: 4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz 8212ac4b10deb3f69d84b80a8a0d3cfd gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1 2. Are you only planning for this to be in devel? You might consider using a dist tag... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag For fc4 you would also have to change the X BuildRequires. 3. Consider supressing /usr/lib/libgps.a file with --disable-static or removing the .a file before packaging. 4. The 'E: gpsd-clients only-non-binary-in-usr-lib' rpmlint can probibly be ignored. It's good to ship app-defaults files so people can customize as they like. perhaps file an RFE against rpmlint to allow this case? 5. I see in the build logs: xmlto man gps.xml make[1]: xmlto: Command not found make[1]: [gps.1] Error 127 (ignored) Perhaps a 'BuildRequires: xmlto' is needed? 6. You use a python call to determine the python site dir, should you also have a 'BuildRequires: python'? It's not in the exceptions list of packages not to list. (Althought it's in the base build group, so it works) 7. There is also a 'W: gpsd non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hotplug/usb/gpsd.usermap' from rpmlint. I think thats safe to ignore as well. (In reply to comment #1) > Items needing attention: > > 1. md5sum's of the upstream source don't seem to match: > > 4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz > 8212ac4b10deb3f69d84b80a8a0d3cfd gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1 This is weird. I get that they do: 4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz 4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1 Ohhh, maybe I accidentally used the source from the upstream srpm the first time around (and perhaps that source tarball doesn't match). Weird. > 2. Are you only planning for this to be in devel? > You might consider using a dist tag... > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag I know, and included the dist tag shortly after I submitted this bug report (but didn't yet post the new srpm as it was the only change). I use it in the new srpm as indicated below. > For fc4 you would also have to change the X BuildRequires. Right. Will do if I build for fc4 (as right now I'm not even sure what is needed). > 3. Consider supressing /usr/lib/libgps.a file with > --disable-static or removing the .a file before packaging. Done. > 4. The 'E: gpsd-clients only-non-binary-in-usr-lib' rpmlint > can probibly be ignored. It's good to ship app-defaults files > so people can customize as they like. perhaps file an RFE > against rpmlint to allow this case? Ok, ignoring error. > 5. I see in the build logs: > xmlto man gps.xml > make[1]: xmlto: Command not found > make[1]: [gps.1] Error 127 (ignored) > > Perhaps a 'BuildRequires: xmlto' is needed? Oops. My bad. Fixed. > 6. You use a python call to determine the python site dir, > should you also have a 'BuildRequires: python'? It's not in the > exceptions list of packages not to list. (Althought it's in > the base build group, so it works) Also fixed. > 7. There is also a 'W: gpsd non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hotplug/usb/gpsd.usermap' > from rpmlint. I think thats safe to ignore as well. Also ignoring. New spec and srpm: http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd.spec http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd-2.32-1.src.rpm >This is weird. I get that they do: > >4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz >4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1 > >Ohhh, maybe I accidentally used the source from the upstream srpm the firsttime >around (and perhaps that source tarball doesn't match). Weird. Ok, something must have been odd with my initial download. I now get that same md5sum. Downloaded it several places and it all matched. Not sure if there was a hiccup on berlios, somewhere in between or what, but it looks ok now. >> For fc4 you would also have to change the X BuildRequires. > >Right. Will do if I build for fc4 (as right now I'm not even sure what is >needed). ok. Probibly will need xorg-x11-devel there. >New spec and srpm: >http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd.spec >http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd-2.32-1.src.rpm You mean http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd-2.32-3.src.rpm, right? In any case that seems to be the right one. ;) I can't seem to get this to build under mock, but it looks like a dbus-devel and/or problem with my test machine. It builds fine otherwise. All the blockers are fixed, so this package is APPROVED. FYI, the mock build problems I was seeing were due to a missing BuildRequires: dbus-glib which is needed for the link in dbus-devel to be working and pointing to the right library. Built and should be available shortly. Thanks again for the review. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gpsd New Branches: epel7 Owners: fcami Note: Miroslav Lichvar stated by email I could maintain the EPEL7 branch. Git done (by process-git-requests). |