Bug 225808
Summary: | Merge Review: gmime | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> | ||||||||
Component: | gmime | Assignee: | Debarshi Ray <debarshir> | ||||||||
Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||||||
Version: | 23 | CC: | alexl, mattdm, mclasen | ||||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | wtogami:
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: | 2016-12-20 11:57:09 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: | |||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 18:50:06 UTC
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gmime Updated Fedora Owners: alexl, fedora Adds Thorsten Leemhuis as comaintainer MUST Items: xx - rpmlint is unclean on RPM + [rishi@ginger ~]$ rpmlint gmime gmime.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgmime-2.0.so.2.2.21 /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 gmime.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgmime-2.0.so.2.2.21 /lib64/libdl.so.2 gmime.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgmime-2.0.so.2.2.21 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0 gmime.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgmime-2.0.so.2.2.21 /lib64/librt.so.1 gmime.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgmime-2.0.so.2.2.21 /lib64/libnsl.so.1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. [rishi@ginger ~]$ rpmlint gmime-sharp gmime-sharp.x86_64: W: no-documentation gmime-sharp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/gmime-sharp-2.4.pc gmime-sharp.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized mono bindings for gmime gmime-sharp.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. [rishi@ginger ~]$ OK - follows Naming Guidelines OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines + The '%ifarch s390 s390x ppc64' condition looks wrong because devel/mono.spec has 'ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparc alpha s390 s390x ppc'. Since Mono is unavailable in ppc64 causing gmime-sharp to be excluded for that architecture, a bug should be filed blocking the ExcludeArch tracker for PPC64 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/238953). The bug number should be documented in the Spec file as a comment. + The -sharp sub-package's summary should start with a capital letter. + Invoking autoreconf and friends from the Spec file has evoked strong reactions in the past. In this case it would be easy to rework Patch2 to apply against mono/Makefile.in instead of mono/Makefile.am and then use chrpath to remove the rpaths. Remember to replace 'BuildRequires: automake libtool' with 'BuildRequires: chrpath'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath It looks like the --disable-rpath switch does not work, neither could I manage to get rid of the rpaths by modifying libtool. But chrpath is better than using autoreconf. + Here is how the unused-direct-shlib-dependency can be removed: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency + Instead of using mv to rename the files in the %install stanza, would it not be better to pass '--program-prefix=%{name}-' to %configure? It is there for this purpose only. If you choose to use this switch, please don't pass transform='s,x,x' to 'make install' in the %install stanza. + gmime-sharp-2.4.pc should be packaged in a separate -sharp-devel sub-package. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono#-devel_packages + Can gmime-2.2.3-use-pkg-config.patch be removed from CVS? OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines xx - License field does not meet actual license + While most of the source code is under LGPLv2+, the gmime-uudecode and gmime-uuencode binaries are obtained from GPLv2+ sources -- src/*.[ch]. This is a multiple licensing scenario. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Please change the value of the License field to "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" and document it in the Spec or the package. + examples/*-example.c are under GPLv2+. It appears to be a simple mistake and would be good to request upstream to put them at par with the rest of the files. + util/md5-utils.[ch] are in the public domain. xx - upstream license file not included in %doc + Please include src/COPYING, containing the GPLv2 text, also. OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible OK - sources match upstream sources OK - package builds successfully OK - ExcludeArch not needed OK - build dependencies correctly listed OK - no locales OK - %post and %postun invoke ldconfig OK - package is not relocatable xx - file and directory ownership + The -devel sub-package should have 'Requires: gtk-doc' because it installs files in /usr/share/gtk-doc. + Although 'Requires: gtk-sharp2' will pull in mono-core, it is better to have an explicit 'Requires: mono-core' since the -sharp sub-package installs files in /usr/lib/mono. OK - no duplicates in %file OK - file permissions set properly OK - %clean present OK - macros used consistently OK - contains code and permissable content OK - -doc is not needed OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime OK - header files in -devel OK - no static libraries OK - -devel has *.pc file and requires pkgconfig + Although 'Requires: glib2-devel' will pull in pkgconfig, it is better to have an explicit 'Requires: pkgconfig' for the sake of readability. OK - library files without suffix in -devel OK - -devel requires base package OK - no libtool archives OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages OK - buildroot correctly prepped OK - all file names valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - upstream provides license text xx - no translations for description and summary OK - package builds in mock successfully OK - package builds on all supported architectures OK - package functions as expected OK - scriptlets are sane OK - subpackages other than -devel requires base package xx - pkgconfig files in -devel + gmime-sharp-2.4.pc should be packaged in a separate -sharp-devel sub-package. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono#-devel_packages OK - no file dependencies Created attachment 328009 [details]
Sample Spec file fixes.
Created attachment 328010 [details]
Updated Patch2 to apply against mono/Makefile.in
Ping? Those patches look ok to me; feel free to put them in the package. Created attachment 337273 [details] Updated Spec file (In reply to comment #6) > Those patches look ok to me; feel free to put them in the package. Unfortunately after the new provenpackager reseed, the ACLs do not allow me to commit. Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269 If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23 This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |