Spec URL: http://rhack.fedorapeople.org/liblockdep.spec SRPM URL: http://rhack.fedorapeople.org/liblockdep-0.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: liblockdep is a tiny wrapper built around kernel/lockdep.c. The aim is to provide the same functionality the kernel gets from lockdep to userspace. Fedora Account System Username: rhack
Quite a number of issues with this package: [MUSTFIX] 1.building is non-verbose: make -j4 CC FPIC rbtree.o CC FPIC common.o CC FPIC preload.o CC FPIC lockdep.o It's impossible to check this package is being built correctly from build.log. 2. Package ships static lib in main-package. Shipping static libs is strongly discouraged in Fedora - Should you insist on shipping them, they must be shipped in separate *-static subpackage. 3. Shared library doesn't provide SONAME # objdump -p usr/lib/liblockdep.so | grep SONAME Please contact upstream to provide one. 4. The libraries are not installed %{_libdir}, as they are supposed to be: # rpm -qlp liblockdep-0.0.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib/liblockdep.a /usr/lib/liblockdep.so 5. Package ships libraries, but doesn't ship corresponding headers. Normally this doesn't make sense. [CONSIDER] 6. Consider to split the package into <main>, *-devel and *-static. Should you not want to split the program from the shared-lib into a separte *-devel package, then the <main> package must provide corresponding *-devel-provides.
Please consider to add man page for binary /usr/bin/lockdep.
I cannot see COPYING and README in spec file but it is in attached tar.gz. You should add these to package as %doc.
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #1) > 5. Package ships libraries, but doesn't ship corresponding headers. > Normally this doesn't make sense. AFAIK this is single-purpose library. It is meant to be used by application developers only via LD_PRELOAD, no application should link with it. See https://lwn.net/Articles/550889/ for details. IMHO this is special-case and rules for *real* libraries should not be applied to this case so strictly.
Hi. I found that bug bz#1082763 exists. Then I probably close this bug as duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1082763 ***