Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 226023 - Merge Review: libgsf
Summary: Merge Review: libgsf
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Thomas Spura
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 19:24 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2010-07-19 12:32 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-07-19 12:32:23 UTC
tomspur: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 19:24:20 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: libgsf

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/libgsf/
Initial Owner: caolanm@redhat.com

Comment 1 Thomas Spura 2010-07-19 11:32:06 UTC
review:

GOOD:
- name ok
- license ok
- locales properly handled
- libs correctly installed
- no *.la


NEEDSWORK
- python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING* files. You can choose between the two possibilities.
  For more info see:
  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-July/000631.html

- $ rpmlint ./libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc13.src.rpm ./x86_64/libgsf-*
libgsf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e
libgsf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e
libgsf-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf-vba-dump ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-gnome.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libgsf-gnome-1.so.114.0.18 ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-gnome.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf-office-thumbnailer ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-gnome.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gsf-office-thumbnailer.schemas
libgsf-gnome-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libgsf-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/gnomemodule.so gnomemodule.so()(64bit)
libgsf-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/_gsfmodule.so _gsfmodule.so()(64bit)
libgsf-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/gnomemodule.so ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/_gsfmodule.so ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 7 warnings.

See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath

- I needed to use 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' and not just 'rm -r' in %clean, or the build fails for me.

- Please use this macro from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

%if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}
%endif

And not your own defined python_py_sitearch and python_lib_sitearch.

- Please use INSTALL="install -p" when installing to preserve timestamps.

Comment 2 Caolan McNamara 2010-07-19 12:10:27 UTC
a) python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING*
files...

"If a subpackage is dependent ... implicitly ... upon a base package ... it is
not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc."

rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep COP
/usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING.LIB

rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf
libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
libgsf = 1.14.18-2.fc14
libgsf(x86-64) = 1.14.18-2.fc14

rpm -qp --requires RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-python-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf
libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit)

So its not necessary for libgsf-gnome to include a license text as it requires implicitly libgsf whose package has a %doc. So I reckon that one is ok.

b) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath

now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14

c) - I needed to use 'rm -rf ...

now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14

d) - Please use this macro from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14

Comment 3 Thomas Spura 2010-07-19 12:32:23 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> a) python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING*
> files...
> 
> "If a subpackage is dependent ... implicitly ... upon a base package ... it is
> not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc."
> 
> rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep COP
> /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING
> /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING.LIB
> 
> rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf
> libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
> libgsf = 1.14.18-2.fc14
> libgsf(x86-64) = 1.14.18-2.fc14
> 
> rpm -qp --requires RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-python-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep
> libgsf
> libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
> libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit)
> 
> So its not necessary for libgsf-gnome to include a license text as it requires
> implicitly libgsf whose package has a %doc. So I reckon that one is ok.

Yes, it's ok... I just looked to the spec file :(

> b) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
> 
> now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
> 
> c) - I needed to use 'rm -rf ...
> 
> now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
ok 
> d) - Please use this macro from:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
> 
> now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14    
ok

Thanks.

Just a cosmetic issue:
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib} resolves to
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT//usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/
               ^^

So one '/' should be deleted. But that's only cosmetic...

______________________________________________________________________________

APPROVED


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