Bug 469972

I'll take this

bad rpmlint output:

glfw.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/glfw-2.6/glfwug.tex
glfw.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/glfw-2.6/glfwrm.tex
glfw.x86_64: E: no-binary
(if it has no binary wouldn't libglfw be a better name - also documentation goes in the documentation package)

glfw-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
(see below)

glfw-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libglfw.so
glfw-devel.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libglfw.so

glfw.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 9)

according to
http://glfw.sourceforge.net/license.html
license is zlib/libpng not bsd

and as usual a few comments on your voodoo is nice for those who maintain your packages while you are unable.

You should split out all the documentation into a subpackage or at the very least put it in the -devel package (though there seems to be a lot of it, a doc package would be preferable)

Good news though, it builds in mock (x86_64 f10)

Spec URL: http://pfj.fedorapeople.org/glfw.spec
SRPM URL: http://pfj.fedorapeople.org/libglfw-2.6-2.fc10.src.rpm

Okay, sorted most of the problems except for the spec file - I can do that on the next run (somewhat rushed today!!!!)

Ping!!!!

oh when you said "the next run" I thought you meant another update was coming so I didn't look at it

Generally I like this one, let's call it approved

Thanks :-)

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: libglfw
Short Description: A portable OpenGL framework
Owners: pfj
Branches: devel, f9
InitialCC: pfj

I'll rebuild for tao in the morning and update that :-)

David: I know it's a formality, but could you set the fedora-review flag to + ? 
I know you approved in comment #5, but can you just confirm? 

Also, Paul: would it be possible to re-upload the spec so others could look? 
It's gone from the above links.

dear Einstein I hate the new bugzilla, it's confusing layout keeps letting me forget these details. die die die..

Paul: I assume you want a F10 branch as well?

cvs done (with F-10 branch as well).

Looks like there's still some work here to do, reopening:

What's the rationale for the empty main package?  Shouldn't the *.so be included in it instead of -devel?

The ldconfig calls are useless in the now empty main package.  I suppose they'd be useless even if the *.so would be in the main one because there's no soname in the *.so.

Specfile should be named libglfw.spec, not glfw.spec.

Empty debuginfo package and unstripped objects remain unfixed.  Fix for both would probably be a matter of installing the *.so with 755 permissions instead of 644.

Ping

The .so file should really go to the main package and the static library should be eliminated, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries

Ville: By the way -- is it ok for a shared library to have no soname? Without it we can't depend on exact ABI version. Probably the right way to fix it to persuade upstream into using a SONAME themselves (they already consider package versions to be API versions, according to comments in source code). But anyway, if upstream did not do that, shouldn't we just make up a soname?

Persuading upstream to implement versioning would be best.  I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to invent versioning independently of upstream in the Fedora packages - there may be a good deal of confusion when/if upstream later implements versioning as well and ships a version using the same soname that was earlier used in Fedora for something that's not ABI compatible.

And additionally, if the shared lib is left unversioned at least for now, I don't think adding an unversioned soname would add any value either - AFAIK sonames are all about versioning.

Degrading successful fedora-cvs flag as the review wasn't that successful;
please do a real and full formal review solving all the mentioned issues.

ping?

I went through the outstanding issues and corrected the package according to Guidelines, since the maintainer seemed irresponsive.

David, please pay more attention to reviews, ask your sponsor or #fedora-devel if you are unsure about something. Thanks!

Lubomir, thanks for doing the work. I had a short look to it in CVS and it
now looks fine to me. Can you also please prepare a same well done update
for F-9 if not already done?