Fedora Merge Review: xdelta http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/xdelta/ Initial Owner: atkac
BuildRoot ( %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root ) is not one of the values accepted in the packaging guidelines. License seems to be GPLv2+ (not GPLv2) and the file COPYING should be included in %docs. I suggest to also add AUTHORS. Source0 should be http://xdelta.googlecode.com/files/xdelta-1.1.4.tar.gz Latest version is xdelta3.0u (http://xdelta.googlecode.com/files/xdelta3.0u.tar.gz), I had to dig below "deprecated" to locate the source0 URL for 1.1.4. Current URL is http://xdelta.org/. There are duplicate BRs: pkgconfig (by glib2-devel), automake (by libtool), autoconf (by libtool). however this is mostly cosmetic . rpmlint is unhappy, most notably is the rpath signaled in the binary rpm: Source RPM: xdelta.src:223: W: macro-in-%changelog doc xdelta.src:225: W: macro-in-%changelog defattr xdelta.src:235: W: macro-in-%changelog defattr xdelta.src:240: W: macro-in-%changelog setup xdelta.src:250: W: macro-in-%changelog doc xdelta.src:251: W: macro-in-%changelog post xdelta.src:254: W: macro-in-%changelog defattr xdelta.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A binary file delta generator and an RCS replacement library. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. rpmlint of xdelta-debuginfo: xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/generic.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/getopt.h xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/sha.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/xdeltapriv.h xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/md5c.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/library.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/simple.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/edsio_edsio.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/edsio_edsio.h xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/default.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/xdmain.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/partime.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/base64.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/partime.h xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/edsio.h xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/xdapply.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/maketime.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/edsio.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/libedsio/fh.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/xd_edsio.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/xdelta.c xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/xdelta.h xdelta-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xdelta-1.1.4/xd_edsio.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 23 warnings. rpmlint of xdelta: xdelta.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/xdelta-1.1.4/xdelta.magic xdelta.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/xdelta-1.1.4/NEWS xdelta.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/xdelta-1.1.4/README xdelta.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A binary file delta generator and an RCS replacement library. xdelta.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/xdelta ['/usr/lib64'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. rpmlint of xdelta-devel: xdelta-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation xdelta-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Static library and header files for Xdelta development. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. I also notice that the devel package includes two static libs (/usr/lib64/libedsio.a, /usr/lib64/libxdelta.a). If including them is really intended, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries a separate xdelta-static package should be created for them. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines, the xdelta-devel package should require pkgconfig, although I guess that the /usr/bin/pkg-config included automatically by rpmbuild is enough.
Created attachment 327984 [details] fixed spec, silences rpmlint (modulo "xdelta-devel: W: no-documentation ")
Created attachment 327985 [details] fixed my mail address in changelog
Created attachment 327999 [details] separate static libs into their own package I am pretty sure the static libs are not needed (repoquery --repoid=development --whatrequires "/usr/lib*/libxdelta.a" returns only xdelta-devel), but the attached spec will provide them, in a separate package. Most probably the files should be nuked together with the libtool files, but I am not in position to evaluate that, I've never developed anything based on xdelta
All issues should be fixed in xdelta-1.1.4-8.fc13.
Indeed, most of the issues are solved. However there are 2 cosmetic issues left which would be nice to see fixed (especially the first one): - please either remove the buildroot line completely or use one of the forms accepted by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag - there are duplicate BuildRequires: pkgconfig (by glib2-devel), automake (by libtool), autoconf (by libtool) Since both issues are purely cosmetic now, I'll leave their fixing to your appreciation. Closing the review as done and fixed. Thank you, Adam.
(In reply to comment #6) > Indeed, most of the issues are solved. However there are 2 cosmetic issues left > which would be nice to see fixed (especially the first one): > - please either remove the buildroot line completely or use one of the forms > accepted by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag Fixed. > Closing the review as done and fixed. Thank you, Adam. Thank you for the review.