All in fedora cvs.
I'll take it.
OK source files match upstream: 2ad1622b672ccf53a3444a0c55724d38 libcdio-0.81.tar.gz OK source contains full URL OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. BAD specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. rpmlint warns: libcdio.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 28, tab: line 47) (minor issue, can be easily fixed) OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license (GPLv3+). OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. BAD latest version is being packaged. Latest version is libcdio-0.82, why it's not packed? OK BuildRequires are proper. (It will build with just doxygen in BuildRequires, but other BuildRequires are not in Exceptions list, so it's probably fine to have them in the spec file.) OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock. OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD rpmlint is silent. libcdio.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 28, tab: line 47) - can be easily fixed libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cd-info ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cdda-player ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libudf.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libcdio_paranoia.so.0.0.3 ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/iso-info ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libcdio_cdda.so.0.0.5 ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libiso9660.so.7.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/iso-read ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cd-paranoia ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cd-read ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cd-drive ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/mmc-tool ['/usr/lib64'] - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath, this will help you remove rpath libcdio.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libcdio-0.81/THANKS - please convert it to the utf8 OK final provides and requires look sane. OK %check is present and all tests pass. OK every binary RPM package which contains shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in -devel. OK packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. Summary: pack latest upstream version, remove rpath, don't mix tabs and spaces in the spec file, convert THANKS file to the utf8 encoding
Sorry, but I do not understand... I will try to fix the warnings and errors but why is this being reviewed? I thought merge reviews do only exist for former Fedora Core packages...
I'm sorry. The right Summary should be Package Review.
What is this? libcdio has been in Fedora for ages? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/libcdio Is this going to RHEL or something? If so, this is strange, you let Adrian fix the bugs so you can take the fixes and nice and clean package to RHEL? If there are bugs in packing, open bugs against the package and send patches. Don't start a review. . Terje
I'm sorry for puzzling you. I didn't see any review on libcdio, every package should have review and therefore I have created this bug. Well, the component hasn't been chosen wisely. I will change it to libcdio.
I have changed spec file and local (and scratch) build looks sane.
Created attachment 385691 [details] diff of spec file This diff changes version, removes rpath and change encoding of one file
(In reply to comment #6) > I'm sorry for puzzling you. I didn't see any review on libcdio, every package > should have review and therefore I have created this bug. Well, the component > hasn't been chosen wisely. I will change it to libcdio. Packages imported from fedora.us do not have a review in Red Hat's bugzilla. Those are in the no longer existing bugzilla.fedora.us.
I see. Looks like no objections with update to 0.82. Do you have any objections with changes? If not, I will commit changes...
(In reply to comment #10) > I see. > Looks like no objections with update to 0.82. Do you have any objections with > changes? If not, I will commit changes... Will you also do all the necessary rebuilds?
I am still puzzled about this bug report. But thanks for your patch; I have applied it; libcdio has been rebuilt as well as all dependencies.