Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade-0.17-17.src.rpm Description: Gnome-1 support library for loading user interfaces. This package was removed from Core for FC6 and I am submitting it to Extras to support the people that still need it for legacy applications. I pulled the package from Core CVS and then tweaked it for Extras and to suit my own cosmetic preferences. Reviewers may consider using rpmdiff to compare the built packages with the versions in Fedora Core 5.
Since -devel has files in %{_libdir}/pkgconfig and %_datadir/aclocal, to avoid possible unowned dirs, it should: Requires: pkgconfig and Requires: automake (or Requires: %_datadir/aclocal) respectively.
Double checked, and Requires: pkgconfig is already there.
Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade-0.17-18.src.rpm -18 has epoch in versioned dependency for libxml-devel
This builds in mock; rpmlint complains about the following: E: libglade-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I think this is due to /usr/lib64/libgladeConf.sh. A couple of other packages (libxml2-devel, libxslt-devel) do this. I guess it's some pre-pkgconfig behavior or something. It's pretty bogus, but I don't think it's a blocker for a legacy library like this one. Additionally, rpmlint on the installed package complains: W: libglade undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libglade-gnome.so.0.4.2 glade_standard_build_children plus 17 additional undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings. I guess it would be nice for these to go away, but again, this is a legacy library and these aren't generally blockers in any case. Full review forthcoming.
So, really it's just the undefined-non-weak-symbol thing. I'll go ahead and approve, but it would be good to at least check if it's possible to fix that. * source files match upstream: 38b2e2cfd813783fe157617813bfe3b3 libglade-0.17.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging 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. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged (the latest version before glade2, that is) * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. ? rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libglade-0.17-17.fc6.x86_64.rpm libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit) libglade.so.0()(64bit) libglade = 1:0.17-17.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libart_lgpl.so.2()(64bit) libaudiofile.so.0()(64bit) libesd.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_imlib.so.1()(64bit) libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit) libglade.so.0()(64bit) libglib-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgnome.so.32()(64bit) libgnomesupport.so.0()(64bit) libgnomeui.so.32()(64bit) libgtk-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libxml.so.1()(64bit) libglade-devel-0.17-17.fc6.x86_64.rpm libglade-devel = 1:0.17-17.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/env gnome-libs-devel >= 1.4.1.2 libglade = 1:0.17-17.fc6 libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit) libglade.so.0()(64bit) libxml-devel >= 1.8.16 pkgconfig * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries present; ldconfig is called as necessary. Unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers in -devel subpackage. * pkgconfig file in -devel subpackage; pkgconfig is a dependency. * no libtool .la droppings. APPROVED
(In reply to comment #4) > This builds in mock; rpmlint complains about the following: > E: libglade-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > I think this is due to /usr/lib64/libgladeConf.sh. A couple of other packages > (libxml2-devel, libxslt-devel) do this. I guess it's some pre-pkgconfig > behavior or something. It's pretty bogus, but I don't think it's a blocker for > a legacy library like this one. OK, left that one. > Additionally, rpmlint on the installed package complains: > > W: libglade undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libglade-gnome.so.0.4.2 > glade_standard_build_children > > plus 17 additional undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings. I guess it would be nice > for these to go away, but again, this is a legacy library and these aren't > generally blockers in any case. I believe I've fixed this in -19, along with the /usr/lib64 rpaths on the x86_64 build. Given that you approved the package already, I'll import it and build it. Any new issues you have, I'll fix in cvs. Thanks for the review. Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade-0.17-19.src.rpm
Oddly enough I didn't see any rpaths in my x86_64 build. But the new package looks fine and it seems that fixing the undefined-non-weak-symbol stuff was easy. Thanks.
18744 (libglade): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. Build logs may be found at http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/18744-libglade-0.17-19.fc6/ owners.list updated. Thanks again for the review.