Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717337 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-18 08:00:59 EDT --- Several of the findings in comment 2 have not been added to the spec file and have not been commented on either. Please respond to reviewers' comments even if you disagree with them. > License: LGPL v2 or later The correct license identifier really is "LGPLv2+" as pointed out in comment 2. The related guidelines are these: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names Writing this comment I noticed the linked spec file is out-of-date and doesn't match the latest src.rpm. Hmmm... continueing with the src.rpm then: > License: LGPLv2 So, same comment as above applies. ;) > Name: liburcu > Group: Development/Libraries Dunno whether or when RPM will get rid of these Group tags (if at all), but library base packages typically belong into Group: System Environment/Libraries > %description > Userspace RCU (Read-Copy-Update) Implementation from the LTTng project. Very brief and reads more like a summary. The top lines at http://lttng.org/urcu/ contain a somewhat more detailed description that could be copied and modified slightly to build a more detailed description: | This package contains liburcu, a userspace RCU (read-copy-update) | library. This data synchronization library provides read-side access | which scales linearly with the number of cores. It does so by allowing | multiples copies of a given data structure to live at the same time, | and by monitoring the data structure accesses to detect grace periods | after which memory reclamation is possible. What do you think? > ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x Based on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#ExcludeArch_.26_ExclusiveArch I recommend dropping this, especially since no spec file comment gives a strong rationale. > %package -n liburcu-devel > Requires: liburcu = %{version}-%{release} Be aware of %{?_isa} having entered the guidelines as a MUST item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > autoreconf -fvi No strong feelings here. Just know that depending on what versions of the GNU Autotools may be required by the liburcu build files, a full autoreconf may cause broken builds. Sometimes without terminating the RPM package build job. > make %{?_smp_mflags} For more verbose build.log output, this one works: V=1 make %{?_smp_mflags} > %files -n liburcu-devel > %{_prefix}/include/* Note that %{_includedir} exists, too, and is the one set by the %configure macro. As convenient as wildcards may be, with some packages, it can also be beneficial to be a little bit more specific about what file names to include, e.g. %{_includedir}/urcu* or even %{_includedir}/urcu/ %{_includedir}/urcu*.h would implicitly protect against unexpected renames during package version upgrades. You would learn about substantial changes below %_includedir due to the build failing. Not mandatory, of course. > %{_libdir}/*.a https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries > # rpmlint * > liburcu.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liburcu-qsbr.so.1.0.0 > exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 and several more. Please find out why/when it calls exit and whether you can get rid of this. > liburcu-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/userspace-rcu-0.6.3/urcu/list.h > liburcu-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/urcu/rcuhlist.h > liburcu-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/urcu/rculist.h > liburcu-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/urcu/list.h Please try to get this fixed in the upstream tarball. 0.6.4 is available, btw. > %doc README LICENSE https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review