[Bug 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499

--- Comment #2 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix)  ---
Created attachment 889255
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=889255&action=edit
changes

(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1)
> > URL: https://sourceware.org/netresolve/
>
> Forbidden
> You don't have permission to access /netresolve/ on this server.

Yes, the upstream website hasn't been launched yet but I received numerous
requests to come up with a Fedora package.
> > Source0: netresolve-0.0.1.tar.xz
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source

It is a git snapshot and the sourceware git doesn't offer tarballs. I already
contacted sourceware maintainers about it.
> > %package devel
> > Summary: Development files for getdns
> > Group: Development/Libraries
>
> If you set the optional Group tag for this subpackage, why is it missing in
> the base package? "Group: System Environment/Libraries"
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag

Added.
> > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package

Fixed.
> > Requires: pkgconfig
>
> There are automatic pkgconfig dependencies for a long time. Query the built
> packages. You would only need this explicit dep for EL5. But the package
> does not include any .pc file, so the dependency is superfluous currently.

Removed.
> > %post
> > /sbin/ldconfig
> >
> > %postun
> > /sbin/ldconfig
>
> If you don't to execute anything else, consider executing ldconfig directly
> instead of running it within a /bin/sh script:
>
> %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
>
> %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

Done.
> > %doc NEWS COPYING
>
> Why not include README and TODO?

Added.
> Instead, the NEWS file contents are rather useless so far.

Let's get ready for the releases.
> Btw, it declares this as "0.0.1", but if there is a 0.0.1 release, the RPM
> package ought not apply the pre-release snapshot versioning scheme, but
> apply the post-release versioning scheme:

This is a 0.0.1 pre-release package, no release exists, yet.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
> > PKG_CHECK_MODULES([ARES], [libcares])
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines#BuildRequires_based_on_pkg-config

Fixed.
> > build.log
>
> Output is non-verbose. One cannot see whether Fedora's %optflags are used,
> for example, and one cannot verify the compiler/preprocessor settings.

Fixed.
> Is the included "tests" directory suitable for running it at build-time in
> the spec %check section?

Definitely yes.
> > checking for ARES... yes
> > checking for ub_ctx_create in -llibunbound... no
>
> This check fails, but it linked with libunbound nevertheless. Suspicious.

Fixed upstream.

https://sourceware.org/git/?p=netresolve.git;a=commitdiff;h=371bf5d950a57962...

Will attach new spec and srpm later.