Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508483 Christian Krause <chkr(a)plauener.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |chkr(a)plauener.de AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |chkr(a)plauener.de Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508483 --- Comment #2 from John Guthrie <guthrie(a)counterexample.org&gt; 2009-07-03 23:40:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Not done yet. Should be finished in a couple of days. Doh! I think I must have run rpmlint on the specfile and then absent-mindedly forgotten to check the RPM that I had just built. Here is the latest output from rpmlint: ewl.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libewl.so.1.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ewl-devel.i586: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fixed Fixed. Fixed. Fixed. Is this true even when the file is a symlink created by the %post section. My thinking was that the *.so.1 files were created by the %post section, so they should be ghosted. One of the automatically generated requires for the devel package is /usr/bin/pkg-config. Is that not sufficient? I haven't posted the latest package. I'll be posting it once I get a new version of the software. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508483 --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-07-04 07:59:12 EDT --- We run ldconfig primarily to update the dynamic linker's cache file. ldconfig creates the *.so.N symlink, if it isn't present already (or it changes it, if a newer library version is found). However, the *.so.1 symlink ought to be included in your package already. If "make install ..." doesn't create it, you can do it yourself: %install ... make install ... /sbin/ldconfig -n %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ It is, but only for Fedora >= 11. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508483 --- Comment #6 from John Guthrie <guthrie(a)counterexample.org&gt; 2009-07-05 00:42:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Fair enough. Fixed. Fixed for Fedora <= 10. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508483 --- Comment #8 from Christian Krause <chkr(a)plauener.de&gt; 2009-07-05 19:45:06 EDT --- Thanks for the new package. I've fully reviewed the package now. In general it looks quite good, there are only some minor TODO items left: * rpmlint: OK rpmlint SPECS/ewl.spec SRPMS/ewl-0.5.2.042-7.fc10.src.rpm RPMS/i386/ewl-* ewl.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libewl.so.1.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.0 ewl-devel.i386: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. According to rpmlint's help the usage of exit in libraries is discouraged since the calling application can not handle the error. However, in this case it seems to be a design decisions of the enlightenment developers and other libraries like ecore suffer from the same problem. This will not block the review. But depending on your involvement with upstream it would probably be worth to ask them for the reasons and/or explain them why its discouraged. * naming: OK - name matches upstream - spec file name matches package name * sources: OK - md5sum: 385082d91eb112671a5c64af295da91d ewl-0.5.2.042.tar.gz - sources matches upstream - Source0 tag ok - spectool -g works * License: TODO - License in spec file does not match the actual license (COPYING looks like a variant of the MIT license) - however, the included spec file mentiones BSD - the enlightenment authors mentioned usually only BSD as the license of the related projects - I've asked fedora-legal for clarification and got a response that the following license field should be used: License: MIT with advertising https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00003.html - license file packaged * package containing *.pc files must "Requires: pkgconfig": TODO - IMHO the usage of %if conditions should be omitted if not really needed - even if this may be questionable or whether in this case it would be meaningful, the packaging rules are indisputable here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Pkgconfig_Files please require pkgconfig unconditionally in the -devel package * spec file written in English and legible: OK * compilation: TODO - supports parallel build - RPM_OPT_FLAGS are correctly used - it would be better not to build the static libraries instead of deleting them later, please add a "--disable-static" and remove the deleting of the *.a files - builds in mock (F10) - builds in koji: F12: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1454826 F11: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1454836 F10: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1454851 * BuildRequires: OK * locales handling: OK (n/a) * ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK * package owns all directories that it creates: OK * no files listed twice in %files: OK * file permissions: OK - %defattr used - actual permissions in packages ok * %clean section: OK * macro usage: OK * code vs. content: OK (only code) * main package should not contain development related parts: TODO /usr/lib/ewl/tests should be in -devel package * large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a) * header files in -devel subpackage: OK * static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a) * *.so link in -devel package: OK * - devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: OK * packages must not contain *.la files: OK * GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a) * packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install: OK * all filenames UTF-8: OK * functional test: OK - ewl_config (which uses libewl) in main package (simple tool to configure the themes etc.) works * debuginfo sub-package: OK - non-empty - debuginfo file works together with gdb -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508483 --- Comment #10 from Christian Krause <chkr(a)plauener.de&gt; 2009-07-06 15:29:45 EDT --- Sorry, not 100% - the line must be exactly as I wrote: License: MIT with advertising Please remove the commented lines completely: # Removing .a files #find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.a' -exec rm '{}' \; Unfortunately this fix has introduced a minor issue: the directory %{_libdir}/%{name} itself is now an orphan, since it isn't included neither in the main nor in the -devel package. Please add %dir {_libdir}/%{name} to the main pacakge. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508483 Christian Krause <chkr(a)plauener.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Christian Krause <chkr(a)plauener.de&gt; 2009-07-07 15:46:59 EDT --- Hi John, I've reviewed the latest package and all issues brought up during the review were addressed and fixed. Just one additional suggestion I've overseen before: To include the libraries in the %files sections you can better write: in %files: %{_libdir}/*.so.* instead of %{_libdir}/libewl.so.1 %{_libdir}/libewl.so.1.0.0 and in %files devel: %{_libdir}/*.so But since this is really quite subjective and there is no explicit rule about it, I don't think another review cycle is necessary. Please import the package as it was reviewed into CVS and if you like you can do this minor enhancement later. Regarding: the package is: -> APPROVED Best regards. Christian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508483 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; 2009-07-08 12:30:53 EDT --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.