Bug 510022 - Review Request: compat-readline5 - A library for editing typed command lines
Review Request: compat-readline5 - A library for editing typed command lines
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Michal Nowak
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2009-07-07 09:12 EDT by Miroslav Lichvar
Modified: 2013-03-07 21:06 EST (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-07-14 11:49:39 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mnowak: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Miroslav Lichvar 2009-07-07 09:12:42 EDT
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~mlichvar/tmp/compat-readline5.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~mlichvar/tmp/compat-readline5-5.2-15.fc12.src.rpm
The Readline library provides a set of functions that allow users to
edit command lines. Both Emacs and vi editing modes are available. The
Readline library includes additional functions for maintaining a list
of previously-entered command lines for recalling or editing those
lines, and for performing csh-like history expansion on previous

This is a compat package for packages that have license incompatible with GPLv3+ which is used by new readline-6.0.
Comment 1 Michal Nowak 2009-07-08 11:10:25 EDT

#  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1]

compat-readline5.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libhistory.so.5.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
compat-readline5.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /lib64/libreadline.so.5.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5

Miroslav checked code, it's exit on -ENOMEM.

compat-readline5-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

Dunno what's the problem here.

newman@dhcp-lab-124 ~ $ rpmls /home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/readline-devel-5.2-14.fc11.x86_64.rpm  | grep so
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/lib64/libhistory.so
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/lib64/libreadline.so

newman@dhcp-lab-124 ~ $ rpmls /home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/compat-readline5-devel-5.2-15.fc11.x86_64.rpm  | grep so
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/lib64/readline5/libhistory.so
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/lib64/readline5/libreadline.so

compat-readline5-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
compat-readline5-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Doc bit are intentionally removed.

[ OK ] # MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .

We don't have general "compat" naming policy, the name looks like any other "compat" package.

[ OK ] # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .

Filename is "compat-readline5.spec".

[ OK ] # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[ OK ] # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .

> License: GPLv2+

[ OK ] # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3]

COPYING says GPLv2, sources: "...as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version..."

[ OK ] # MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4]

> -rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/compat-readline5-5.2/COPYING

[ WAIVED ] # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]

It is (to my best knowledge).

[ OK ] # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[ OK ] # MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.

e39331f32ad14009b9ff49cc10c5e751  readline-5.2.tar.gz
e39331f32ad14009b9ff49cc10c5e751  /home/newman/rpmbuild/SOURCES/readline-5.2.tar.gz

[ OK ] # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7]

Local test performed.

[ N/A ] # MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]

[ OK ] # MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[ N/A ] # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[ OK ] # MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[ OK ] # MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [11]
[ FAIL ] # MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [12]


newman@dhcp-lab-124 x86_64 $ rpmquery -f /usr/lib64/readline5/
file /usr/lib64/readline5 is not owned by any package

Looks like the dir /usr/lib64/readline5/ is not owned by anyone. The archives inside are.

[ OK ] # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [13]
[ OK ] # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [14]
[ OK ] # MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
[ OK ] # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[ OK ] # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[ N/A ] # MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[ OK ] # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18]
[ OK ] # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
[ OK ] # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]

-rw-r--r--  /usr/lib64/readline5/libhistory.a
-rw-r--r--  /usr/lib64/readline5/libreadline.a

[ N/A ] # MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [21]
[ OK ] # MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19]

newman@dhcp-lab-124 x86_64 $ rpmls compat-readline5-*devel*5.2-15.fc11.x86_64.rpm  | grep so
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/lib64/readline5/libhistory.so
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/lib64/readline5/libreadline.so

[ OK ] # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [22]
[ OK ] # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
[ N/A ] # MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [23]
[ OK ] # MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24]
[ OK ] # MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
[ OK ] # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]


You might require "info" instead.

> Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
> Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info


Patches, last two at least, should have a comments associated.


3) Summary from the review above:

  A) Directory ownership
  B) only-non-binary-in-usr-lib warning
Comment 2 Miroslav Lichvar 2009-07-08 11:36:47 EDT
The description for the rpmlint warning says:
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.

I don't think it applies here.

Everything else should be fixed in

Comment 3 Michal Nowak 2009-07-09 05:22:58 EDT
The warning was caused by file(1)'s fault, filed bug 510429.

- patches have comments
- directory ownership is now OK
- builds in Koji (scratch)
Comment 4 Michal Nowak 2009-07-11 03:16:34 EDT
Comment 5 Miroslav Lichvar 2009-07-13 07:05:40 EDT
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: compat-readline5
Short Description: A library for editing typed command lines
Owners: mlichvar
Comment 6 Michal Nowak 2009-07-13 07:08:18 EDT
Requesting CVS per mlichvar. See Comment #5.
Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2009-07-14 00:39:27 EDT
cvs done.

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