Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libp11 - a small library for dealing with PKCS#11 tokens https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245081 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-28 15:59 EST ------- OK, here's what rpmlint gives me: W: libp11 unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libp11.so.0.1.1 /lib64/libssl.so.6 W: libp11 unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libp11.so.0.1.1 /lib64/libdl.so.2 W: libp11 unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libp11.so.0.1.1 /lib64/libz.so.1 What this means is that libp11.so is linked against those three libraries but doesn't actually use anything from them. (Either that or it means rpmlint is broken, I guess.) I think configure is just being overzealous: checking for OPENSSL_LIBS... -L/usr/kerberos/lib64 -lssl -lcrypto -ldl -lz when the package just needs -lssl. I don't think this is a particularly big deal; probably not worth hacking the configure script over. Source0: should contain a full URL to the upstream source if possible. You probably want something like: http://www.opensc-project.org/files/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz You must include the COPYING file as %doc in the main package. That's about it as far as I can see. While you're putting up an updated package, go ahead and apply for cvsextras access and I'll click the necessary button. Instructions are in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join down in the "Get A Fedora Account" section. Review: * source files match upstream: 6593e76b815393f2a3896e163d1c23a7e0bd3eb1fabaf9795ba1bbbc4c500630 libp11-0.2.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X license text included in tarball but not in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: libp11-0.2.2-4.fc8.x86_64.rpm libp11.so.0()(64bit) libp11 = 0.2.2-4.fc8 = /sbin/ldconfig libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libltdl.so.3()(64bit) libp11.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libp11-devel-0.2.2-4.fc8.x86_64.rpm libp11-devel = 0.2.2-4.fc8 = libp11 = 0.2.2-4.fc8 libp11.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries present; ldconfig called and unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. Development documentation is in the -devel subpackage. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * pkgconfig files are in the -devel subpackage; pkgconfig dependency is there. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review