Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/review/libgit2.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/review/libgit2-0.17.0-1.src.rpm Description: libgit2 is a portable, pure C implementation of the Git core methods provided as a re-entrant linkable library with a solid API, allowing you to write native speed custom Git applications in any language with bindings. Fedora Account System Username: tdawson
It's surprising how you've mispackaged this library. :-( > License: GPL2 with linking exemption. As a valid tag, at most there is "License: GPLv2 with exceptions" in the Fedora Licensing guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main > pure C implementation If it's written in C, a working -debuginfo package ought to be built. > # Cleanup > rm -rf %{buildroot}/usr/lib/debug %{buildroot}/usr/src/debug https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Debuginfo_packages > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > %package devel > Summary: The Git linkable library This is half-hearted summary for the -devel package. That package does not contain the library, but just the files needed for building software that uses libgit2. > %description devel > libgit2 is a portable, pure C implementation of the > Git core methods provided as a re-entrant linkable > library with a solid API, allowing you to write native > speed custom Git applications in any language with bindings. Same here. Just copying the %description of the base package is misleading. > /usr/lib/%{name}* And what about target platforms where %{_libdir} is /usr/lib64? > %files devel > /usr/include/git2* > /usr/lib/pkgconfig Same here. And since the package cannot be built yet, I assume one of the library files is misplaced, too: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages A simple test-build for Fedora 18 fails very early, unfortunately.
Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/review/libgit2.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/review/libgit2-0.17.0-2.fc20.src.rpm I'd gotten so used to rubygems I think I'm slipping on normal packages. Thank you for the comments. - License: fixed - now GPL2 with exceptions - Descriptions for devel - fixed - Debuginfo - it always did create a debuginfo. But it was leaving all the source code in those directories called "debug" - /usr/lib/ - I didn't even notice this until you said it. I was building this on a 64 bit machine, and all my builds have done 64, yet everything is put into /usr/lib/ ... I don't want to change it to %{_libdir} or it might break. - building - That's sorta funny that it didn't build on F18. That's usually the platform that I build on, but this time I built on rawhide and F19, and it worked. I figured if it would build on those, it would build on earlier version. I was wrong, but I've fixed the buildrequires so that it now builds on F18.
> but this time I built on rawhide and F19, and it worked. Not in a clean buildroot, such as with koji/Mock. You've added "BuildRequires: zlib-devel", which would be missing in Rawhide and F19, too. ;) > I don't want to change it to %{_libdir} or it might break. It will be impossible to approve this package then. Please run "rpmlint" or "rpmlint -i" on all rpms, the src.rpm _and_ the built rpms. Feel free to ignore the obvious false positives (e.g. spelling mistakes).
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros | | %{_libdir} must always be used for binary libraries due to multi-lib, | you may not substitute a hard-coded path. The pkgconfig file libgit2.pc also needs a bit of work. libdir=/usr/lib is hardcoded there. And the file is customised for static linking. It sets a pkgconfig inter-dependency on openssl-devel and relinks with zlib. Typically, for shared library builds, one would move such inter-dependencies into the Libs.private and Requires.private fields.
Just a note that this package has already been submitted for review at [1]. You really should check before submitting a review request (it is in the review request guidelines). In addition there are apparently bundled libraries that would require unbundling or an fpc exception. Since the other review was submitted first and it has a reviewer i would suggest you close this review and optionally work with the other submitter to see if you can help there. [1] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867959
You are correct. I usually do, and thought that I did. But there was 4 or 5 packages I was checking in Koji and then in the review requests, and I must have missed this in the review requests. I'll mark this as a duplicate of that one. Though it's been sitting there for quite a while without any progress.
That's a surprise. It's not displayed on the pages at http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ but only when using the "Quick Review Search" box.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 867959 ***