Bug 478640 (mingw32-dlfcn)

Itamar, can you try making a Koji scratch-build of this please.
It will make it easier to review.  You will need to do something
like:

koji build --scratch dist-f11 mingw32-dlfcn-r11-1.fc10.src.rpm

(I'm not exactly sure if that is the correct command, and
upgraded my machine yesterday so Koji is now broken for
me, so please check it).

I imported this package into the Fedora MinGW temporary
repository because I want to have other packages depend
on it.

Here is an updated package:

Spec URL: http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/dlfcn/mingw32-dlfcn.spec
SRPM URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1049268&name=mingw32-dlfcn-0.1-0.2.r11.fc11.src.rpm
* Tue Jan 13 2009 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> - 0.1-0.2.r11
- Import into fedora-mingw temporary repository because there are packages
  which will depend on this.
- Fix the version/release according to packaging guidelines.
- Tidy up the spec file.
- Use dos2unix and keep the timestamps.

Here is a successful Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1049267

rpmlint says:
mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libdl.dll.a
mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/dlfcn.h
mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libdl.dll.a
mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

These are all errors which can be ignored for MinGW packages.

Doesn't need to be in NEEDINFO any more.

"Fix it with sed in the %prep section: %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' src/somefile -- DONT use dos2unix, that can cause build fail on FC3. "

Well you should stick to the guidelines even if FC3 is long dead.
Pass %{?_smp_mflags} to make unless you have a reason not to do so.

Will do a formal review later this week (limited time).

(In reply to comment #4)
> "Fix it with sed in the %prep section: %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' src/somefile --
> DONT use dos2unix, that can cause build fail on FC3. "
> 
> Well you should stick to the guidelines even if FC3 is long dead.

I'm missing the context here.  Was the above in reply to something?

> Pass %{?_smp_mflags} to make unless you have a reason not to do so.

I agree, this should be added.

> Will do a formal review later this week (limited time).

Thanks.

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > "Fix it with sed in the %prep section: %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' src/somefile --
> > DONT use dos2unix, that can cause build fail on FC3. "
> > 
> > Well you should stick to the guidelines even if FC3 is long dead.
> 
> I'm missing the context here.  Was the above in reply to something?

Yeah forgot to quote the context:
"- Use dos2unix and keep the timestamps."
dos2unix shouldn't be used, use sed instead. (see above quote from the guidelines)

dos2unix issue raised with FPC:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-January/msg00066.html

Here's an updated package which reverts the dos2unix change
and should fix everything else:

Spec URL: http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/dlfcn/mingw32-dlfcn.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw/fedora-10/src/SRPMS/mingw32-dlfcn-0-0.3.r11.fc10.src.rpm

* Wed Jan 14 2009 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> - 0-0.3.r11
- Use Version 0
  (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-January/msg00064.html)
- Revert use of dos2unix for now
  (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-January/msg00066.html)
- Use _smp_mflags.

REVIEW:

[+] = OK
[-] = NOT OK
[1] = SEE COMMENTS
[?] = WTF?

===========================

[+]	source files match upstream:
		sha1: 0b691107a23554d927987d4ddfca6e84dfd85313
[+]	package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
[+]	specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
[+]	dist tag is present.
[+]	build root is correct.
[+]	license field matches the actual license.
[+]	license is open source-compatible.
 		LGPLv2+
[+]	license text included in package.
[+]	latest version is being packaged.
[+]	BuildRequires are proper.
[+]	compiler flags are appropriate.
[+]	%clean is present.
[+]	package builds in koji.
		http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1058151
[+]	package installs properly.
[1]	rpmlint is silent.
[+]	final provides and requires are sane
[+]	no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
[+]	doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
[+]	no duplicates in %files.
[+]	file permissions are appropriate.
[+]	no scriptlets present.
[+]	code, not content.
[+]	documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
[+]	%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
[2]	no headers.
[+]	no pkgconfig files.
[+]	no libtool .la droppings.

============================

COMMENTS

1: not silent.
mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libdl.dll.a
mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/dlfcn.h
mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libdl.dll.a
mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32

Those are fine thought (package used for cross compiling)

2: header is present, but its fine (cross compile package)

============================

Package looks good => APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: mingw32-dlfcn
Short Description: Implements a wrapper for dlfcn (dlopen dlclose dlsym dlerror)
Owners: rjones berrange lfarkas
Branches: EL-5 F-10
InitialCC:

cvs done.

mingw32-dlfcn-0-0.3.r11.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-dlfcn-0-0.3.r11.fc10

mingw32-dlfcn-0-0.3.r11.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.