Fedora Merge Review: libgsf http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/libgsf/ Initial Owner: caolanm
review: GOOD: - name ok - license ok - locales properly handled - libs correctly installed - no *.la NEEDSWORK - python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING* files. You can choose between the two possibilities. For more info see: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-July/000631.html - $ rpmlint ./libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc13.src.rpm ./x86_64/libgsf-* libgsf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e libgsf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e libgsf-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf-vba-dump ['/usr/lib64'] libgsf-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf ['/usr/lib64'] libgsf-gnome.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libgsf-gnome-1.so.114.0.18 ['/usr/lib64'] libgsf-gnome.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf-office-thumbnailer ['/usr/lib64'] libgsf-gnome.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gsf-office-thumbnailer.schemas libgsf-gnome-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libgsf-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/gnomemodule.so gnomemodule.so()(64bit) libgsf-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/_gsfmodule.so _gsfmodule.so()(64bit) libgsf-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/gnomemodule.so ['/usr/lib64'] libgsf-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/_gsfmodule.so ['/usr/lib64'] libgsf-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 7 warnings. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath - I needed to use 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' and not just 'rm -r' in %clean, or the build fails for me. - Please use this macro from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python %if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5) %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")} %endif And not your own defined python_py_sitearch and python_lib_sitearch. - Please use INSTALL="install -p" when installing to preserve timestamps.
a) python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING* files... "If a subpackage is dependent ... implicitly ... upon a base package ... it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc." rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep COP /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING.LIB rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit) libgsf = 1.14.18-2.fc14 libgsf(x86-64) = 1.14.18-2.fc14 rpm -qp --requires RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-python-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit) libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit) So its not necessary for libgsf-gnome to include a license text as it requires implicitly libgsf whose package has a %doc. So I reckon that one is ok. b) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 c) - I needed to use 'rm -rf ... now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 d) - Please use this macro from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
(In reply to comment #2) > a) python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING* > files... > > "If a subpackage is dependent ... implicitly ... upon a base package ... it is > not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc." > > rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep COP > /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING > /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING.LIB > > rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf > libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit) > libgsf = 1.14.18-2.fc14 > libgsf(x86-64) = 1.14.18-2.fc14 > > rpm -qp --requires RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-python-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep > libgsf > libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit) > libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit) > > So its not necessary for libgsf-gnome to include a license text as it requires > implicitly libgsf whose package has a %doc. So I reckon that one is ok. Yes, it's ok... I just looked to the spec file :( > b) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > > now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 > > c) - I needed to use 'rm -rf ... > > now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 ok > d) - Please use this macro from: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python > > now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14 ok Thanks. Just a cosmetic issue: $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib} resolves to $RPM_BUILD_ROOT//usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ ^^ So one '/' should be deleted. But that's only cosmetic... ______________________________________________________________________________ APPROVED