[Bug 494073] New: Review Request: libvmime - Powerful library for MIME messages and Internet messaging services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: libvmime - Powerful library for MIME messages and Internet messaging services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494073
Summary: Review Request: libvmime - Powerful library for MIME messages and Internet messaging services Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kanarip@kanarip.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/libvmime.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f11/SRPMS/libvmime-0.9.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: VMime is a powerful C++ class library for working with MIME messages and Internet messaging services like IMAP, POP or SMTP.
With VMime you can parse, generate and modify messages, and also connect to store and transport services to receive or send messages over the Internet. The library offers all the features to build a complete mail client.
rpmlint is silent
- f9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1276553 (fails because of dependency error) - f9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1276589 (succeeds without inkscape builddep) - f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1276554 - f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1276559
A note on the inkscape builddep; if I were to package the documentation I would need inkscape to generate the pdf from the *.tex files, though I'm not sure that I should (the docs don't build for a normal ./configure && make either)
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=494073
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net 2009-04-08 07:47:44 EDT --- * Most certainly you want the -static subpackage to require the -devel subpackage instead of the main package.
%doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog INSTALL README
In case this is the standard "INSTALL" file, it is irrelevant to RPM package users and typically is not included.
* Further, is it necessary to include the same %doc files in all three packages? They are stored in three different doc directories.
* The pkgconfig file is tuned for static linking and relinks against libgsasl and libgnutls. If you keep it like that, you're missing dependencies in the -devel package for the corresponding -devel pkgs that contain those lib symlinks:
$ cat vmime.pc|grep l[ib]*g Requires: libgsasl Libs: -L${libdir} -lvmime -lgsasl -lgnutls
$ rpm -qpR libvmime-0.9.0-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm |grep ^libg libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgnutls.so.26()(64bit) libgnutls.so.26(GNUTLS_1_4)(64bit) libgsasl.so.7()(64bit)
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=494073
Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d | |e
--- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2009-04-13 19:27:23 EDT --- Any news here?
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=494073
--- Comment #3 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2009-04-14 00:12:07 EDT --- I've taken Michael's suggestions:
New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/libvmime.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f11/SRPMS/libvmime-0.9.0-2.fc11.src.rpm
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=494073
Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d | |e | AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d | |e Flag| |fedora-review?
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=494073
--- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2009-04-14 10:11:51 EDT --- - Why do you %doc INSTALL? Doesn't make much sense to me. - To me it looks like the $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not honored, following seems to work for me so far and uses also parallel builds:
export EXTRA_CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %configure make %{?_smp_mflags}
- Is there really any need to ship the static libraries? So shouldn't link anything in Fedora anyway dynamically? - Group "Applications/System"? Wouldn't "System Environment/Libraries" be a bit better? - Regarding the documentation: Did you have a closer look to it, whether that one is usable and it's not just a waste of disk space? - Source0 should be like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL; use: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar....
[ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libvmime-* libvmime-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libvmime-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ -> Okay and accepted according to comment #2 [ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [ ?? ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines -> See above. [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [ OK ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc [ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. -> 23feb9cff7ba3961c0693926e21448cf libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2 -> 23feb9cff7ba3961c0693926e21448cf libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2.1 -> 02215e1d8ea758f486c32e7bff63a04f71a9b736 libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2 -> 02215e1d8ea758f486c32e7bff63a04f71a9b736 libvmime-0.9.0.tar.bz2.1 [ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line [ ?? ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. -> See above (documentation related). [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden [ OK ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [11] [ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [ ?? ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). -> See above (documentation related). [ ?? ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. -> See above (documentation related). [ OK ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [ OK ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. -> Is the -static subpackage really needed and wanted? [ OK ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [ OK ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [ OK ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [ OK ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [ OK ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Maybe let us short discuss about the documentation, that's the only real point of the review, where some time needs to be spend for now. Rest of my points is (or should) be trivial so far.
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=494073
--- Comment #5 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2009-04-14 10:13:04 EDT --- Ah, one thing I forgot: %configure is looking for /usr/sbin/sendmail - so it could make sense to buildrequire sendmail package to ensure that dependency and the resulting build features.
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=494073
--- Comment #6 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2009-04-17 06:12:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
- Why do you %doc INSTALL? Doesn't make much sense to me.
It does make sense to me as it is upstream %doc and so I ship it but it's not a big deal.
- To me it looks like the $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not honored, following seems to work for me so far and uses also parallel builds:
export EXTRA_CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %configure make %{?_smp_mflags}
Fixed.
- Is there really any need to ship the static libraries? So shouldn't link anything in Fedora anyway dynamically?
This is a dependency for ISV products I'm packaging.
- Group "Applications/System"? Wouldn't "System Environment/Libraries" be a bit better?
You're right. Fixed.
- Regarding the documentation: Did you have a closer look to it, whether that one is usable and it's not just a waste of disk space?
As discussed on IRC, no detailed docs are shipped and are available online. I added a comment to the spec file to reflect that.
Fixed.
New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/libvmime.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f11/SRPMS/libvmime-0.9.0-3.fc11.src.rpm
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=494073
Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de 2009-04-17 06:29:03 EDT --- Thanks for performing the changes, everything is fine now and looks good, thus the package is: APPROVED.
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=494073
Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2009-04-17 07:14:44 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libvmime Short Description: Library for MIME messages and Internet messaging services Owners: kanarip Branches: EL-4 EL-5 F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
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=494073
--- Comment #9 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2009-04-17 07:24:09 EDT --- You may want to add F-11 as well, because devel/Rawhide is already dist-f12...
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=494073
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-04-17 17:33:00 EDT --- cvs done.
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=494073
--- Comment #11 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2009-04-22 13:37:33 EDT --- Ping Jeroen?
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=494073
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-23 12:15:19 EDT --- libvmime-0.9.0-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libvmime-0.9.0-3.fc9
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=494073
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-23 12:15:25 EDT --- libvmime-0.9.0-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libvmime-0.9.0-3.fc11
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=494073
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-23 12:15:31 EDT --- libvmime-0.9.0-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libvmime-0.9.0-3.fc10
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=494073
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-27 17:27:16 EDT --- libvmime-0.9.0-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=494073
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.9.0-3.fc10 Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=494073
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-27 17:41:01 EDT --- libvmime-0.9.0-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=494073
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|0.9.0-3.fc10 |0.9.0-3.fc9
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=494073
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-08 23:59:00 EDT --- libvmime-0.9.0-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=494073
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|0.9.0-3.fc9 |0.9.0-3.fc11
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla