This service will be undergoing maintenance at 00:00 UTC, 2017-10-23 It is expected to last about 30 minutes
Bug 456774 - Review Request: libanculus-sharp - Reusable utility library written in C#
Review Request: libanculus-sharp - Reusable utility library written in C#
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-07-26 19:32 EDT by Mathieu BONIFACE
Modified: 2010-07-16 02:39 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-07-16 02:39:56 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Mathieu BONIFACE 2008-07-26 19:32:32 EDT
Spec URL:

libanculus-sharp serves and helps you to easily and quickly
write new applications. It contains all the building blocks
that you need to develop a good C# application.

rpmlint says :
[builder@mathieu SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libanculus-sharp-0.3.1-1.fc9
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[builder@mathieu SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/libanculus-sharp-*
libanculus-sharp.i386: E: no-binary
libanculus-sharp.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libanculus-sharp-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
libanculus-sharp-doc.i386: W: no-documentation
libanculus-sharp-doc.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings.

Also, I think only-non-binary-in-usr-lib and no-binary can be ignored for mono package

Note that mock builds are good for fedora-9-i386, fedora-9-x86_64 and fedora-rawhide-x86_64

It's not my first review request, but I need a sponsor.
Comment 1 Steve Traylen 2010-02-20 12:54:30 EST
(I've not checked yet if there are any mono guidelines in particular)

$ rpmlint libanculus-sharp.spec 
libanculus-sharp.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab: line 3)
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/libanculus-sharp-0.3.1-1.fc12.src.rpm 
libanculus-sharp.src: W: strange-permission libanculus-sharp.spec 0777
libanculus-sharp.src: W: strange-permission libanculus-sharp-0.3.1.tar.bz2 0777

$ rpmlint *x86_64.rpm
libanculus-sharp.x86_64: E: no-binary
libanculus-sharp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libanculus-sharp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libanculus-sharp-doc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libanculus-sharp-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

As you say I think these are okay, I need to check a bit myself.

4) Packaage contains:


but that directory is not owned or in a package that is pulled in.

5) Similar story for 

6) Similar also for 


Please check all the others.

7) Line 31 of the .spec file. The spacing is different to the other lines.

8) I would guess that with
%{__chmod} 755
sh --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir}

if you call it with sh you don't need to chmod it first.

9) In the -doc package the files are not marked as %doc which 
   is possibly okay. They are needed at runntime?

10) The -doc package looks to be noarch so at least this sub package
    could me marked as noarch.

11) Why are the docs in 

  rather than /usr/share or something? Though this starts to 
   cross into why monodoc itself is in there.


p.s The monodoc package needs a bug.

$ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/monodoc/monodoc.xml /usr/lib64/monodoc/
file /usr/lib64/monodoc is not owned by any package
Comment 2 Steve Traylen 2010-03-02 16:55:42 EST
Comment 3 Mathieu BONIFACE 2010-03-02 17:18:45 EST
I'm not interested in packaging this library.

If anyone is interested in this it can resume work.
Comment 4 Steve Traylen 2010-03-07 11:31:17 EST
Removing myself from the review.

I suggest this is closed shortly.

Comment 5 manuel wolfshant 2010-07-16 02:39:56 EDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm not interested in packaging this library.
> If anyone is interested in this it can resume work.    

Based on the above comment from the person who initially asked for the review, I am closing this review request. If anyone is willing to add this package to Fedora, please create a new review request.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.