[Bug 1038167] Review Request: libatomic_ops - Atomic memory update operations

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038167



--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael at gmx.net> ---
* rpmlint W/E:

libatomic_ops.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/libatomic_ops/README.md
libatomic_ops.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/libatomic_ops/ChangeLog
libatomic_ops.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/libatomic_ops/COPYING
libatomic_ops.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/libatomic_ops/COPYING
libatomic_ops.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/libatomic_ops/AUTHORS
libatomic_ops.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/libatomic_ops/LICENSING.txt
libatomic_ops-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libatomic -> lib
atomic, lib-atomic, subatomic
libatomic_ops-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libatomic
-> lib atomic, lib-atomic, subatomic
libatomic_ops-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/libatomic_ops-devel/README_malloc.txt
libatomic_ops-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/libatomic_ops-devel/README_win32.txt
libatomic_ops-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/libatomic_ops-devel/README.txt
libatomic_ops-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/libatomic_ops-devel/README_stack.txt
libatomic_ops-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libatomic -> lib
atomic, lib-atomic, subatomic
libatomic_ops-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libatomic
-> lib atomic, lib-atomic, subatomic
libatomic_ops-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libatomic_ops.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
libatomic_ops.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues


> License: GPLv2+ and MIT

I wonder whether the license header in several of the "tests" source files,
which are GPL v2, could be updated by upstream to add the "or later" clause?

That would not affect the License tag of this package, though. Unless upstream
may want everything to be GPLv2 instead of GPLv2+. File doc/LISENSING.txt only
tells "GNU General Public License", no particular version, so this could be a
form of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification


> %package devel
…
> %description devel
> %{summary}.

> %package static
…
> %description static
> %{summary}.

Pedantic -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#summary

Two short descriptions, which would be a full sentence and not copy %summary,
are:

  Files for developing with %{name}.
  Files for developing with %{name} and linking statically.

I've seen the former in other -devel packages. Since the base package
description is long enough, the -devel package can live with its own brief
description, IMO.


> Version: 7.4.0

That's high enough to replace the previous libatomic_ops-devel package from
"gc".


>  --enable-shared \

That's a tough one. This setting overrides the default. I've tried to find a
comment on whether the devs think the interface is ready for a shared lib
(which is at version 1:3:0 -> 1.0.3 currently). Several packages at Fedora
BuildRequires the -static one so far.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component