[Bug 1266429] Review Request: cmark - CommonMark parsing and rendering

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266429

Marco Driusso <marcodriusso@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |marcodriusso@xxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #4 from Marco Driusso <marcodriusso@xxxxxxxxx> ---
This is an unofficial review, for my sponsorship process.

Comments on the spec file:
- you are including a patch for fixing cmake lib64 problem, but actually not
using it (no %patch macro in %prep section); moreover, I don't think that patch
will fix the issue;
- instead of the mv workaround for fixing cmake lib64 issue, you may patch
src/CMakeLists.txt by including GNUInstallDirs, that defines
CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR according to the system architecture (lib if i686, lib64
if x86_64); then, you can use CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR in install(.. DESTINATION
..) directives;
- you should give a full valid URL in the Source0 tag;
- I would put both the command line binary and the versioned shared lib in the
main package, and leave source headers and unversioned lib in the devel
sub-package, without any lib sub-package;
- devel package must require the base package (the one containing the versioned
shared lib); moreover, the dependency must be a fully versioned dependency
(since there is also an architecture dependency);
- you should include additional documentation in the main package using %doc
(e.g. the README.md file) in the %files section;
- as Miroslav pointed out, ldconfig must be called in %post and %postun
sections, which should be placed after %check and before %files

You should then fix all errors and warnings highlighted by rpmlint (some
related to the comments above):

$ rpmlint cmark.spec
cmark.spec:59: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
cmark.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: cmark-0.22.0-lib64.patch
cmark.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: cmark-0.22.0.tar.gz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint cmark*.rpm
cmark.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US groff -> gruff, gr off,
gr-off
cmark.src:59: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
cmark.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: cmark-0.22.0-lib64.patch
cmark.src: W: invalid-url Source0: cmark-0.22.0.tar.gz
cmark.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US groff -> gruff, gr off,
gr-off
cmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/cmark-0.22.0/src/utf8.h
cmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/cmark-0.22.0/src/utf8.c
cmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/cmark-0.22.0/src/references.c
cmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/cmark-0.22.0/src/render.c
cmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/cmark-0.22.0/src/houdini_html_u.c
cmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/cmark-0.22.0/src/inlines.c
cmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/cmark-0.22.0/src/blocks.c
cmark-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on cmark/cmark-libs/libcmark
cmark-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libcmark -> millibar
cmark-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libcmark development files
cmark-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcmark ->
millibar
cmark-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
cmark-lib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcmark -> millibar
cmark-lib.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcmark.so.0.22.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
cmark-lib.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cmark-lib.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
/usr/lib64/libcmark.so.0.22.0
cmark-lib.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib64/libcmark.so.0.22.0
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 19 warnings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]