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-zlib - Cross Compiled zlib Library targeted at arm-gp2x-linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243254 kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-06 11:45 EST ------- MUST Items: + rpmlint output: + SRPM: W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib invalid-license zlib This is the F7 rpmlint being out of date. :-) E: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib configure-without-libdir-spec This one's OK for a cross library. (There's no 64-bit GP2X ;-).) + noarch RPM: W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.so W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.a W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/include/zconf.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/include/zlib.h 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-zlib library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.so.1.2.3 E: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.so.1.2.3 OK, as this a target library (twice the same...) which isn't even in the ldconfig search path. The required symlinks are already there anyway. W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib invalid-license zlib Again, the F7 rpmlint being out of date. E: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.a E: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.so.1.2.3 Again, this is OK because those are target files. W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-gp2x-linux This one's OK too for a cross-library package. + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines + spec file name matches base package name + Packaging Guidelines: + License zlib OK, matches actual license + 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 library 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 shared library 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 + license contained in README which is included as %doc + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + source matches upstream: MD5SUM: dee233bf288ee795ac96a98cc2e369b6 SHA1SUM: 967e280f284d02284b0cd8872a8e2e04bfdc7283 The patch also matches the one in the native package. + 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 + ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories owned by another package) + 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 (in README) + 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: All the examples from the zlib source code compile and link (except gzlog.c which doesn't include a main function, just utility functions). + 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 APPROVED -- 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