Bug 479835

Ah, I also meant to add, this is the first package that I have attempted to submit, so I would need a sponsor :)

Hey Alex, I would be happy to look at this and bug 479951 and sponsor you. 

Look for a full review later today.

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name. 
See below - Spec has consistant macro usage. 
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. 
OK - License (LGPLv2+)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
ca5412b7515d8901714ab7892323adb6  log4c-1.2.1.tar.gz
ca5412b7515d8901714ab7892323adb6  log4c-1.2.1.tar.gz.orig
See below - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. 
OK - Package has a correct %clean section. 
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content. 
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. 
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. 
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
See below - .la files are removed. 

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. 
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. 
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. 
See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. 
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions)
See below - No rpmlint output. 
OK - final provides and requires are sane.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock. 
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin

Issues: 

1. No need for a %check section if there is nothing in it is there?

2. Please change the Source url to match the sourceurl guidelines for sourceforge
projects? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL

3. Please use a consistent type of macro... either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}, 
but not both. As a side note, I don't personally think it's worth it to macroize
things like mv or mkdir, but thats up to you. 

4. Please remove .la files, don't %exclude them. excluding has weird effects sometimes. 

5. Looks like you might be missing a BuildRequires... from the build.log: 

checking for EXPAT - version >= 1.95.1...
no
*** Could not run EXPAT test program, checking why...
*** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the
*** exact error that occured. This usually means EXPAT was incorrectly installed
*** or that you have moved EXPAT since it was installed. In the latter case, you
*** may want to edit the expat-config script: ''
*** Log4C will still run without EXPAT--it uses some bundled
*** lex/yacc code to parse the configuration file

6. rpmlint says: 

log4c.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblog4c.so.3.1.0 exit.5
log4c-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

You might bring up the first to upstream, the second can be ignored. 

7. Since your devel subpackage puts a file under /usr/share/aclocal, you 
probibly need to add a Requires: automake to the devel subpackage.

Kevin,

Thanks for the detailed comments, much appreciated.

Updated SRPM: http://www.alexhudson.com/fedora/log4c/log4c-1.2.1-2.fc10.src.rpm
SPEC: http://www.alexhudson.com/fedora/log4c/log4c.spec

1: The %check was there to remind me to tie in the built-in tests; however, they fail to run cleanly at the moment - indeed, with the current compiler flags, one crashes very nicely. I've removed this entirely for now; I suspect the tests needs to be reworked upstream before being useful here.

2, 3, 4: Thanks!

5: Well, it was optional, but the config parsing seems much more robust using Expat instead of the built-in grammar, so I've changed it to use that

6: Yes, indeed - I'll follow this up with the log4c guys

7: I'm going to disagree with you here ;) The .m4 file is there as a convenience for automake-using developers; you don't need to use automake to compile against log4c. E.g, I have a project here using CMake to build against log4c - it doesn't need that macro at all.

Thanks again!

1. ok. You can always add a comment reminding yourself to add the check when it's working. 

2, 3, 4: All look good. 

5. ok. Sounds good. 

6. Sounds good. 

7. Sadly, thats not going to pass guidelines: 

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.

I think your choices are: 

- Requires: automake

- Split the .m4 file into a subpackage (log4c-automake?) and Requires: automake there. 

- Move the .m4 file over to being a %doc file. 

- Don't ship the .m4 file at all. 

Thoughts?

About automake .m4 file:

My recognition is that we have not reached consensus yet about
whether every packaging shipping aclocal .m4 files should have
"Requires: automake" or not. c.f.
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-October/msg00046.html

Guys,

Thanks very much for the comments - I have a better appreciation of the automake issue now; I had just thought about it in terms of "what dependencies are needed to develop?" instead of the technical directory ownership issue. 

It does seem on the face of it that moving /usr/share/aclocal to filesystem would be a good idea, or at least some new automake-macros package which can then be required and not bring in the entire automake system. However, that's obviously something which needs agreement project-wide.

So in that context, I suspect the best solution right now is Requires: automake. It solves the guideline issue, and it's consistent with other -devel packages. I can put a comment in the spec. about keeping a weather-eye out for changes to that, but I imagine there would be some mass bug-posting if that changed anyway.

ok, that was the last blocker item I had... so with the addition of the Requires, this package is APPROVED. 

I will sponsor you... continue the process from: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_a_Fedora_Account

Please feel free to contact me here, via email, or on irc if you have any questions at all.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: log4c
Short Description: flexible application message logging library 
Owners: alexh
Branches: F-9 F-10
InitialCC:

cvs done.

This appears to have been imported and built. 
Closing now.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: log4c
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
Owners: stevetraylen


I sent this mail a week ago to Alex requesting and EPEL branch
with no response. I am now going ahead and requesting the branch myself.

Steve

cvs done.

log4c-1.2.1-7.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/log4c-1.2.1-7.el4

log4c-1.2.1-7.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/log4c-1.2.1-7.el5

log4c-1.2.1-7.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

log4c-1.2.1-7.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.