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: lzma - lzma compression tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248301 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-07 09:23 EST ------- First for your comment 14: (In reply to comment #14) > > * If -devel subpackage is licensed under LGPL, the corresponding > > documents should be installed as a %doc of -devel subpackage > > (i.e. add LICENSE.LIB to %doc of -devel subpackage). > COPYING.LIB has been added to -devel subpackage. - Well, -libs package is also licensed under LGPL and it is more proper that LICENSE.LIB be owned by -libs, not -devel (or you can have LICENSE.LIB owned by both -libs and -devel). > > * Usually the dependency against main or subpackage should be > > version-release specific. > > i.e. main package should have: > > Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release} > > Main package seems to not require -libs to work. - Umm... this is undesirable. I checked the build log and for example: ------------------------------------------------------- /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -I../../src/liblzmadec -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -static -o lzmadec lzmadec.o ../../src/liblzmadec/liblzmadec.la mkdir .libs gcc -I../../src/liblzmadec -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -o lzmadec lzmadec.o ../../src/liblzmadec/.libs/liblzmadec.a make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/lzma-4.32.0beta3/src/lzmadec' -------------------------------------------------------- Here /usr/bin/lzmadec needs liblzmadec.la but liblzmadec.la is used staticly, which must not be and /usr/bin/lzmadec should be linked against liblzmadec.so For this package you can disable static link against liblzmadec.so by passing "--diable-static" to configure. You also have to kill unneeded rpath. (check "Removing Rpath" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines) The following seems to work. -------------------------------------------------------- %build CFLAGS="%{optflags} -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" \ CXXFLAGS="%{optflags} -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" \ %configure --disable-static # kill rpath sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool make %{?_smp_mflags} -------------------------------------------------------- > > and -devel package should have: > > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > > -devel does not require main package to work, but if I remove it > rpmlint complains ? - The reason I said so is because your -4 spec file had --------------------------------------------------------- Requires: %{name} = %{version} --------------------------------------------------------- for -devel package. However actually -devel package does not require main package so you can remove the line. > The devel package only provides a way to decompress lzma archive, not to > compress. As you suggest, I remove it. Should lzma-libs become lzmadec-libs ? - Just okay with lzma-libs. > Done, but I have to use __install instead of _install ? - Sorry, my typo. Then another issues are: * Source - The newest seems to be beta5. * License - License tag policy is recently changed and we must follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing As far as I checked this source code, - -libs and -devel package should be tagged as "LGPLv2+" (this means that License field in spec file should be tagged as "LGPLv2+") - For main package, I cannot find the phrase "and any later" on LzmaDecode.c so I guess this code is licensed under strict LGPL version 2. However (according to the license matrix) LGPLv2 can be relicensed to GPLv2+ (GPL version 2 and any later), and other parts are licensed under LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+, so the main package can be tagged with "GPLv2+". * -devel package still has %defattr(-,root,root) -- 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