Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/karsten/libtool2.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/karsten/libtool-2.2.4-1.src.rpm Description: GNU Libtool is a set of shell scripts which automatically configure UNIX and UNIX-like systems to generically build shared libraries. Libtool provides a consistent, portable interface which simplifies the process of using shared libraries. Note to the reviewer: Quite a few packages which build with libtool won't build with libtool2 anymore as libtool2 has some incompatible changes. We can't make a complete switch at the moment.
Special Comment: I think you should contact FESCo for sheduling this for F-11. Good: + Rpmlint guite for source rpm. + Package has a proper open source license + Local build works fine. + Consitent use of rpm macros + All installed files are owned by the package and doesN't conflict with files of other packages + Package contains verbatin test of the license + Mock build works fine Bad: - Messages from rpmlint libtool-2... rpmlint libtool-2.2.4-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/lt__strl.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/ltdl.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/argz_.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/libltdl/lt__private.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/loaders/dyld.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/lt_error.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/libltdl/lt_error.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/loaders/dld_link.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/libltdl/lt_system.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/libltdl/lt__glibc.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/libltdl/slist.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/lt__dirent.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/libltdl/lt_dlloader.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/loaders/preopen.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/loaders/shl_load.c libtool.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/libtool/config/ltmain.sh libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/libltdl/lt__strl.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/lt__alloc.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/ltdl.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/slist.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/loaders/load_add_on.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/libltdl/lt__alloc.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/lt_dlloader.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/argz.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/libltdl/lt__dirent.h libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/loaders/loadlibrary.c libtool.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/loaders/dlopen.c libtool.x86_64: E: no-binary $ rpmlint libtool-ltdl-2.2.4-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm libtool-ltdl.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long system-installed ltdl libraries; they are not needed by software built using the libtool-ltdl.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL rpmlint libtool-ltdl-devel-2.2.4-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm libtool-ltdl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libtool-ltdl-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. - Why do you not _smp_mflags - Package should not contains *.a and *.la files
Thanks for the review ! In addition to the above there are lots of conflicts with libtool-1.5 which I need to solve. I'm not sure yet which way ist the best, maybe rename binaries/scripts with suffix '2', use /usr/share/libtool2 and move the header files to their own directory under /usr/include
IMO, you can't avoid packaging libtool to allow parallel installation of libtool1 and libtool2, until thing have settled (probably for the next decade :)).
(In reply to comment #3) > IMO, you can't avoid packaging libtool to allow parallel installation of > libtool1 and libtool2, until thing have settled (probably for the next > decade :)). This was the reason why the packager should contact FESCo. So we can make a clear introdcution of libtool-2 on F-11.
#patch1 -p1 #patch2 -p1 #make check VERBOSE=yes > make_check.log 2>&1 || (cat make_check.log && false) I'd reduce this commented-out boilerplate # dumb redhat-rpm-config replaces config.{sub,guess} with ancient ones in %%configure, use ./configure instead: It would seem more prudent to file a bug against redhat-rpm-config, instead of adding a comment like that. %{_libdir}/libltdl.a %{_libdir}/libltdl.la libtool archives should not be packaged at all (though that has a certain irony in this particular review...), static libraries need to be shipped in a -static subpackage if there is a reason to package them. I still have doubts that going for parallel installation is really the best move. Other distros manage to build the entire universe with libtool 2, no ?
(In reply to comment #5) > # dumb redhat-rpm-config replaces config.{sub,guess} with ancient ones in > %%configure, use ./configure instead: > > It would seem more prudent to file a bug against redhat-rpm-config, instead of > adding a comment like that. On rawhide redhat-rpm-config >= 9.0.3-1 this behavior of replacing config.{sub,guess} is removed (see %changelog)
F11 is open for business. We should get moving on introducing libtool2 early in the cycle, parallel or not...
Is there any point to this ticket now that the base libtool package has simply been updated to version 2?
no, I'll close it. The libtool-2 package in Rawhide uses the spec file from libtool-1.5 which already had a review AFAIK.