Bug 226024
| Summary: | Merge Review: libgssapi | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | lemenkov, steved, susi.lehtola | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | susi.lehtola:
fedora-review+
|
||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2009-09-26 12:53:52 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 19:24:32 UTC
Taking over review. MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK
- Obsolete buildroot, obsolete PreReq usage.
- %configure done in %prep instead of %build, use of %buildroot in %configure.
- %makeinstall used instead of make install DESTDIR=%buildroot
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK
- Time stamps on headers are not preserved.
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. ~OK
- No need to set the permissions manually.
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Missing COPYING.
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NEEDSWORK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. NEEDSWORK
- Can't drop them now, though, since they already exist in the package.
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
Created attachment 353975 [details]
Patch to spec file in devel branch that fixes all issues
Apply the patch in comment #3 to the devel branch and I'll approve the package. ping steved All issues were addressed and fixed. I just wondering who's still requiring static library, and I hope that someone will remove *.la file completely :) (can't do it by myself, since it will be a change in ABI). I just updated cvs, and will rebuild it shortly. libgssapi-0.11-7.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgssapi-0.11-7.fc11 libgssapi-0.11-7.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgssapi-0.11-7.fc10 Can you drop the static library altogether? You can drop the .la files in rawhide, since ABI changes are allowed in rawhide. I would say go for it... if some complains we can always put it back or figure out why they need it... Done (in devel branch). Hmm, you shouldn't need to obsolete the static library since it hasn't been in existence as a separate package and you just added the static provide a day ago. ** All issues have been fixed and this package has been APPROVED (In reply to comment #12) > Hmm, you shouldn't need to obsolete the static library since it hasn't been in > existence as a separate package and you just added the static provide a day > ago. I did it just to be sure that everything will be ok. :) > All issues have been fixed and this package has been > > APPROVED Good. I suppose that it's safe to close this ticket. libgssapi-0.11-7.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. libgssapi-0.11-7.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |