Bug 198244
Summary: | Review Request: libglade | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Paul Howarth <paul> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | 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: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-10-02 16:58:07 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: | 198245, 205265 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Paul Howarth
2006-07-10 15:28:04 UTC
Since -devel has files in %{_libdir}/pkgconfig and %_datadir/aclocal, to avoid possible unowned dirs, it should: Requires: pkgconfig and Requires: automake (or Requires: %_datadir/aclocal) respectively. Double checked, and Requires: pkgconfig is already there. Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade-0.17-18.src.rpm -18 has epoch in versioned dependency for libxml-devel This builds in mock; rpmlint complains about the following: E: libglade-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I think this is due to /usr/lib64/libgladeConf.sh. A couple of other packages (libxml2-devel, libxslt-devel) do this. I guess it's some pre-pkgconfig behavior or something. It's pretty bogus, but I don't think it's a blocker for a legacy library like this one. Additionally, rpmlint on the installed package complains: W: libglade undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libglade-gnome.so.0.4.2 glade_standard_build_children plus 17 additional undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings. I guess it would be nice for these to go away, but again, this is a legacy library and these aren't generally blockers in any case. Full review forthcoming. So, really it's just the undefined-non-weak-symbol thing. I'll go ahead and approve, but it would be good to at least check if it's possible to fix that. * source files match upstream: 38b2e2cfd813783fe157617813bfe3b3 libglade-0.17.tar.gz * 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. * latest version is being packaged (the latest version before glade2, that is) * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. ? rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libglade-0.17-17.fc6.x86_64.rpm libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit) libglade.so.0()(64bit) libglade = 1:0.17-17.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libart_lgpl.so.2()(64bit) libaudiofile.so.0()(64bit) libesd.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_imlib.so.1()(64bit) libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit) libglade.so.0()(64bit) libglib-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgnome.so.32()(64bit) libgnomesupport.so.0()(64bit) libgnomeui.so.32()(64bit) libgtk-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libxml.so.1()(64bit) libglade-devel-0.17-17.fc6.x86_64.rpm libglade-devel = 1:0.17-17.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/env gnome-libs-devel >= 1.4.1.2 libglade = 1:0.17-17.fc6 libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit) libglade.so.0()(64bit) libxml-devel >= 1.8.16 pkgconfig * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries present; ldconfig is called as necessary. Unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers in -devel subpackage. * pkgconfig file in -devel subpackage; pkgconfig is a dependency. * no libtool .la droppings. APPROVED (In reply to comment #4) > This builds in mock; rpmlint complains about the following: > E: libglade-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > I think this is due to /usr/lib64/libgladeConf.sh. A couple of other packages > (libxml2-devel, libxslt-devel) do this. I guess it's some pre-pkgconfig > behavior or something. It's pretty bogus, but I don't think it's a blocker for > a legacy library like this one. OK, left that one. > Additionally, rpmlint on the installed package complains: > > W: libglade undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libglade-gnome.so.0.4.2 > glade_standard_build_children > > plus 17 additional undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings. I guess it would be nice > for these to go away, but again, this is a legacy library and these aren't > generally blockers in any case. I believe I've fixed this in -19, along with the /usr/lib64 rpaths on the x86_64 build. Given that you approved the package already, I'll import it and build it. Any new issues you have, I'll fix in cvs. Thanks for the review. Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade-0.17-19.src.rpm Oddly enough I didn't see any rpaths in my x86_64 build. But the new package looks fine and it seems that fixing the undefined-non-weak-symbol stuff was easy. Thanks. 18744 (libglade): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. Build logs may be found at http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/18744-libglade-0.17-19.fc6/ owners.list updated. Thanks again for the review. |