Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: libuser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226054 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-07 16:27 EST ------- As discussed on IRC, there's no upstream for this package. So the various rpmlint complaints like: libuser.x86_64: W: no-url-tag are OK. Following http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL this needs a comment in the spec, which I'll commit shortly. This shows up when you run rpmlint on the installed package: libuser.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libuser.so.1.1.10 /lib64/libdl.so.2 I don't think it's a big issue but perhaps you know what causes it. It just looks like libuser.so is linked against libdl.so but doesn't actually call any symbols from it. I've seen the "WITH_SELINUX" stuff in other formerly core packages and I have to say I'm not quite sure what utility it has these days where everything is always built with selinux support. I think the bit at the end of %install really should be in a %check section instead, but that's not the kind of change I want to commit without consulting you. This file in the -devel package looks a bit odd: /usr/include/libuser/default.-c Any idea if that's a typo? Checklist: * No upstream source to compare against. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: libuser-0.56.6-4.x86_64.rpm config(libuser) = 0.56.6-4 libuser.so.1()(64bit) libuser_files.so()(64bit) libuser_ldap.so()(64bit) libuser_shadow.so()(64bit) libuser = 0.56.6-4 = /sbin/ldconfig config(libuser) = 0.56.6-4 libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libldap-2.4.so.2()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0()(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0(LIBPAM_MISC_1.0)(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0(LIBPOPT_0)(64bit) libselinux.so.1()(64bit) libuser.so.1()(64bit) libuser-devel-0.56.6-4.x86_64.rpm libuser-devel = 0.56.6-4 = glib2-devel libuser = 0.56.6-4 libuser.so.1()(64bit) libuser-python-0.56.6-4.x86_64.rpm libusermodule.so()(64bit) libuser-python = 0.56.6-4 = libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0()(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0(LIBPAM_MISC_1.0)(64bit) libselinux.so.1()(64bit) libuser = 0.56.6-4 libuser.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) = 2.5 * ldconfig called properly * 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 look OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package and are in a subdirectory to avoid conflicts. * pkgconfig file is in the -devel package. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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