This service will be undergoing maintenance at 00:00 UTC, 2017-10-23 It is expected to last about 30 minutes

Bug 454025

Summary: Review Request: libixp - stand-alone client/server 9P library including ixpc client
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Ionuț Arțăriși <mapleoin>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, itamar, lemenkov, mtasaka, notting
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-09-24 12:47:43 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Ionuț Arțăriși 2008-07-03 17:16:21 EDT
Spec URL:
libixp is a stand-alone client/server 9P library including ixpc client. It
consists of less than 2000 lines of code (including ixpc).

libixp's server API is based heavily on that of Plan 9's lib9p, and the two
libraries export virtually identical data structures. There are a few notable
differences between the two, however.

This is my first package and I seem to be in need of a sponsor.
Comment 1 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-07-17 13:26:47 EDT

* Please support parallel make when possible:
  If not possible, write a comment in the spec file that this package does not
  parallel make

* build log like:
+ make
MAKE all libixp/
HEADER include/ixp_fcall.h from fcall.h.nounion
CC libixp/client.o
CC libixp/convert.o
CC libixp/error.o
CC libixp/intmap.o
  is not useful. We cannot verify if Fedora specific compiler flags are
  correctly honored on this package from this build log:
  And actually currently this compiler flags (you can check this by
  $ rpm --eval %optflags) are not correctly honored. Please make build log more
  verbose (you can do this by removing ".SILENT" from makefiles by for example:
find . -type f | xargs grep -l '.SILENT' | xargs sed -i.silent -e 's|\.SILENT||'

* Please use macros properly. /usr must be %{_prefix}, /etc must be %{_sysconfdir}

* When packaging static archives follow:

* This package does not build on x86_64 (I cannot show x86_64 build log because
  koji is very slow...)
  static archives are installed under /usr/lib even on x86_64 (which is wrong
for 64 bits
  machine) where spec files expects that static archives should be installed under
  %_libdir (on 64 bits machine this is /usr/lib64).

* Usually -devel package must have "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}"
  (please check: )
Comment 2 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-07-17 13:32:49 EDT
build log is:
Comment 3 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-08-03 12:47:11 EDT
Comment 4 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-08-09 12:04:59 EDT
ping again?
Comment 5 Ionuț Arțăriși 2008-08-10 06:03:46 EDT
Thank you for the review!

Sorry for not answering all this time and thanks for continuing to ping. I had given up on the package because I got stuck. 
I managed to add a few of the stuff you proposed, but not others. I uploaded the new spec and src.rpms, though they still have errors:

I'm not sure if the libraries should be in the -devel part or if i should replace that with a -static section(though from what I read in the Packaging Guidelines, that's strongly discouraged)

I'm afraid I need more help in order to get this specfile right.
Comment 6 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-08-11 09:37:03 EDT
Well, for 0.4-2:

* Summary/%description
  - "Libixp is a " part is redundant for Summary
  - The Summary for -devel subpackage is not proper.
    Usually this is "Development files for foo".
  - Main package and -devel subpackage have the same %description.
    However the purpose of the two packages are different and
    this is not proper. Please modify the %description.

    You can refer to the %description in the skeleton spec
    file created by "$ rpmdev-newspec -t lib foo".

* 64 bit arch issue
  - Well, actually the fix is not easy, as this package uses somewhat
    unique makefiles which don't seem to be based on recent Makefiles.
    As a workaround, I propose:
%setup -q
# Make build.log more verbose
find . -type f | xargs grep -l '.SILENT' | xargs sed -i.silent -e 's|\.SILENT||'

# Umm... fixing 64 bits archtecture directory issue cannot be easy done
# by applying a patch, using sed...

grep -rl '/lib' . | xargs sed -i.lib \
	-e 's|/lib\([ /]\)|/%{_lib}\1|' \
	-e 's|/lib$|/%{_lib}|'


   ! The above %setup also contains a fix to make build.log more verbose
   !!! Please recheck what I do by the script above.

* Cflags
  - As I wrote in the comment 1, Fedora specific compilation flags are
    not correctly honored:
    For this package the following works (note: the following method is
    this package specific)
make %{?_smp_mflags} \
	CC="%{__cc} -c %optflags"

* %files entry v.s. debuginfo rpm issue
  - Currently (after cflags issue is fixed) rpmlint complains:
libixp-devel.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.build-id
libixp-devel.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.build-id
libixp-devel.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/52/fcd345977adcc0861159407db91f2bc489d3e2 ../../../../bin/ixpc
libixp-devel.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/ixpc.debug
libixp-devel.i386: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/ixpc.debug

   debuginfo rpms installs files under %_libdir/debug so writing %files
   entry like:
%files devel
   is wrong because %_libdir/* contains %_libdir/debug, while files under
   this directory must be owned by -debuginfo rpm and not -devel rpm.
   Please don't use "%{_libdir}/*" and replace this with
   "%{_libdir}/libixp*.a", for example.
Comment 7 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-08-23 23:13:19 EDT
Comment 8 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-09-01 02:58:16 EDT
ping again?
Comment 9 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-09-08 10:09:43 EDT
ping again?
Comment 10 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-09-17 11:30:27 EDT
I will close this bug if no response is received from the reporter within
Comment 11 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-09-24 12:47:43 EDT

If someone wants to import this package into Fedora, please submit a new
review request and make this bug as a duplicate of the new one.

Thank you!
Comment 12 Peter Lemenkov 2009-10-29 10:14:49 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 530617 ***