Bug 374741
| Summary: | Review Request: libmowgli - An algorithm framework | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ralf Ertzinger <redhat-bugzilla> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dcantrell, fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | panemade:
fedora-review+
kevin: 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: | 2007-11-26 04:43:56 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
Ralf Ertzinger
2007-11-10 15:30:18 UTC
source url is not working. I found its http://distfiles.atheme.org/libmowgli-0.5.0.tgz rpmlint complained on SRPM libmowgli.src: W: strange-permission libmowgli-0.5.0.tgz 0600 A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. libmowgli.src: W: strange-permission libmowgli.spec 0600 A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. good to add examples to %doc build.log showed many escape sequences printed but not evaluated. I think its because of Makefile written in that way. Dunno if its really needed to avoid this but it looks very complex output from build.log Will add the examples to %doc in devel. The escape sequences come from the build system used in libmowgli, because I disabled SILENT in the .spec. The alternative would be an output without any compiler/linker calls, which makes build failures hard to debug. I agree that it looks ugly, but I see no easy way around that. URL and file permissions will be fixed, too. New SRPM/spec available at http://www.skytale.net/files/libmowgli/ license looks to me as MIT not BSD. Upstream says it's ISC, will fix. New SRPM/spec available at http://www.skytale.net/files/libmowgli/ Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. with assuming you will import with correct changelog version. + source files match upstream url b8ba57aa4c674765b0852b44798227cb libmowgli-0.5.0.tgz + 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. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags used correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + libmowgli.pc file present. + -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + ldconfig scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Package libmowgli-0.5.0-0.3.fc9 -> Provides: libmowgli.so.1 Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2) 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) libmowgli.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) + Package libmowgli-devel-0.5.0-0.3.fc9 -> Requires: libmowgli = 0.5.0-0.3.fc9 libmowgli.so.1 pkgconfig + Not a GUI App. APPROVED. Thank you for taking the time to review this. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libmowgli Short Description: An algorithm framework Owners: ertzing Branches: F-7 F-8 Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. As, I can see package is now in rawhide so I guess there will be no issues in closing this review now. Any reason there are still no F-7 and F-8 builds? (In reply to comment #12) > Any reason there are still no F-7 and F-8 builds? What? How comes that today's FC8 audacious update already depends on them? # yum update ... Setting up Update Process Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package audacious-libs.i386 0:1.4.5-1.fc8 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: libmowgli.so.1 for package: audacious-libs --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: libmowgli.so.1 is needed by package audacious-libs libmowgli has not been pushed to stable for F-8 as it should have been. My mistake, the push has been requested. (In reply to comment #14) > libmowgli has not been pushed to stable for F-8 as it should > have been. My mistake, the push has been requested. This only partially answers my question. A bit stronger: How comes that a package with apparently broken deps could have made it into the official updates? That I do not know, I requested the push for audacious/audacious-plugins into stable. mcs (another dependency) was moved into updates-candidate along with it, but libmowgli was not. |