Bug 307601 (libHX)
| Summary: | Review Request: libHX - General-purpose library (needed by recent pam_mount) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Till Maas <opensource> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, opensource |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | panemade:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://jengelh.hopto.org/f/libHX/ | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-09-27 17:39:23 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: | |||
|
Description
Till Maas
2007-09-26 18:21:00 UTC
Can we have some different wording in Summary? Good to have examples in t installed as part of -devel package. (In reply to comment #1) > Can we have some different wording in Summary? Do you have a better idea? This summary is from upstream's spec that is in the tarball. > Good to have examples in t installed as part of -devel package. Done. SPEC: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/libHX.spec SRPM: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/libHX-1.10.1-2.fc7.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Can we have some different wording in Summary? > > Do you have a better idea? This summary is from upstream's spec that is in the > tarball. > Not really. But I thought summary does not tell whats purpose of this package. anyway if upstream follows it then we also use the same then. > > Good to have examples in t installed as part of -devel package. > > Done. > > SPEC: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/libHX.spec > SRPM: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/libHX-1.10.1-2.fc7.src.rpm thanks Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM. + source files match upstream. ae2c7ac182a03e589fd45a7867177a0a libHX-1.10.1.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small so no need of -doc subpackage. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags are honoured correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + libHX.pc files are present. + -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + ldconfig scriptlets are used. + libHX package -> Requires: libHX.so.10 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libdl.so.2 libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.1) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides: libHX.so.10 + libHX-devel package -> Requires: libHX = 1.10.1-1.fc8 libHX.so.10 pkgconfig + Not a GUI app. APPROVED. Thank you very much for this fast review. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libHX Short Description: General-purpose library Owners: till Branches: F-7 Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. Build for devel was successful. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=19734 Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libHX New Branches: EL-5 Owners: till If possible, please branch from devel, but this may be the default, because there is no FC-6 branch. CVS done. |