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: arm-gp2x-linux-glibc - Cross Compiled GNU C Library targeted at arm-gp2x-linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242207 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-30 19:03 EST ------- MUST Items: + rpmlint output: + SRPM has empty output + noarch RPM has these: W: arm-gp2x-linux-glibc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libcrypt.so (and many more like this). OK because this is a cross-development package, and these are all target development files. It would make no sense to make a separate devel vs. runtime part because we aren't going to run ARM GP2X binaries on i386/x86_64/ppc/... Fedora anyway. E: arm-gp2x-linux-glibc arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libBrokenLocale-2.3.6.so (and many more like this). Again, this is OK because those are target files. W: arm-gp2x-linux-glibc non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-gp2x-linux This one's OK too for a cross-toolchain package. + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines + spec file name matches base package name + Packaging Guidelines: ! License tag says GPL, actually LGPL, must fix! + No known patent problems + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components + Complies with the FHS (with the cross-toolchain exception for %{_prefix}/%{target}) + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires, BuildRequires, Summary, Description + no non-UTF-8 characters + relevant documentation is included + It would make no sense to use RPM_OPT_FLAGS here because this is a target package, which is built using a cross GCC which won't understand stuff like -fstack-protector, and for which x86 -march and -mtune switches definitely don't make sense. Thus the omission of RPM_OPT_FLAGS is correct. + no -debuginfo package because this is noarch + no host static libraries nor .la files (I think we can give the target static libraries a pass. This isn't a Fedora target, so trying to apply our static library policies to the target wouldn't make much sense.) + no duplicated system libraries + no rpaths (no host executables or libraries at all, I also ran readelf -d on the target libraries to make sure and there's no rpath there either) + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply + no GUI programs, so no .desktop file present or needed + no timestamp-clobbering file commands + _smp_mflags used + scriptlets are valid + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply + no conflicts + complies with all the legal guidelines + COPYING.LIB included as %doc + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + source matches upstream: glibc-2.3.6.tar.bz2: MD5SUM: bfdce99f82d6dbcb64b7f11c05d6bc96 SHA1SUM: 82d0487419f1bdbf2dee439c344e89d6af47e558 glibc-linuxthreads-2.3.6.tar.bz2: MD5SUM: d4eeda37472666a15cc1f407e9c987a9 SHA1SUM: 10190168bf948556afdfff46f87f9208402d810f (The applied patches are also well-documented, i.e. where they come from and what they fix.) + builds on at least one arch (F7 i386 live system) + no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed + no missing BR + no translations, so translation/locale guidelines don't apply + no host shared libraries, so no ldconfig calls needed + package not relocatable ! directory ownership: %{_prefix}/%{target} and %{_prefix}/%{target}/include are already owned by arm-gp2x-linux-kernel-headers which this package Requires, so this package shouldn't own them + no duplicate files in %files + permissions set properly (%defattr present) + %clean section present and correct + macros used where possible (%configure not used for several reasons, including it playing jokes with --target and using host-specific RPM_OPT_FLAGS) + no non-code content + no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed + %doc files not required at runtime + no host headers, target headers are OK in this cross-development package + no host static libraries, so no -static package needed + no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed + no host shared libraries, so .so symlink guidelines don't apply + no -devel package, so the guideline to require the main package in it doesn't apply + no .la files + no GUI programs, so no .desktop file needed + buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install (same nitpick about mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as for arm-gp2x-linux-binutils) + all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: + license already included upstream + no translations for description and summary provided by upstream * Skipping mock test. * Skipping the "all architectures" test, I only have i386. + package functions as described: I installed this, rebuilt arm-gp2x-linux-gcc with %define bootstrap 0 and can now compile and link this C program: #include <stdio.h> int main(void) { puts("Hello World!"); return 0; } I'm not having the same success with C++, but that's probably GCC's fault, so I'm posting the problems there to the GCC review. + scriptlets are sane + no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is irrelevant + no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant + no file dependencies MUST FIX: * fix License to say LGPL, not GPL * don't own %{_prefix}/%{target} and %{_prefix}/%{target}/include (owned by arm-gp2x-linux-kernel-headers) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review