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=817306 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-01 15:10:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Thanks again for the review. > > I uploaded updated spec and srpm on top of the > previous ones. Please always bump the release, add a changelog entry and describe what you have changed and publish a new src.rpm with the new release entry. Then link to the new spec/src.rpm in the new comment, so you don't need to search where the spec/src.rpm is etc. I promise, it will make sense and is not just a nitpick ;) > Yes, my FAS account is pcpa. Thanks. > I opened a generic bug report about inconsistency > with static library packages and guidelines at > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817888 I'm afraid, there needs to be a bug for all packages, that don't comply with the guidelines as Bill writes there... :( > About the package, I actually implemented the > suggestion I made in the upstream bug report, > and attached it to the report, so that now it > by default creates a shared library. Great. > I also rebuilt the megaglest package to ensure > it still works correctly. Actually, with a shared > libircclient, The megaglest patch > megaglest-3.6.0.3-openssl.patch is no longer > required, as now libircclient "pulls" the equivalent > of "-lssl -lcrypto" Great^2 :) Continuing the review: - cocoa is still there - license correct now - It doesn't compile, as you seem to have an old libirc library installed, when building, but when not having it installed, the new build library isn't found: gcc -o spammer spammer.o -L../src/ -lircclient -lpthread -lssl -lcrypto -lnsl /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lircclient collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status Doing a "ln -s libircclient.so.0 src/libircclient.so" helps to build it. --> A "ln -s libircclient.so.$(MAJOR) libircclient.so" is missing in the patch. - rpmlint issues: $ rpmlint /home/tomspur/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libircclient-1.6-1.fc17.src.rpm /home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libircclient-1.6-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libircclient-devel-1.6-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libircclient-debuginfo-1.6-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm libircclient.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US libircclient.src:30: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 30, tab: line 1) libircclient.x86_64: W: no-documentation libircclient-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libircclient development files. libircclient-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C libircclient development files. libircclient-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libircclient-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Please correct mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs, summary-not-capitalized, summary-ended-with-dot. The empty-debuginfo-packages is normally a sign, when a package didn't apply the optflags, but that seems to be the case. In this case, you are building the library with "-s", which strips the library. Please remove that. More information about that here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo -- 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