[Bug 225743] New: Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743

Summary: Merge Review: expect
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Fedora Merge Review: expect

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/expect/
Initial Owner: [e-mail]

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: expect

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: expect

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]      |[e-mail]
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-03 17:13 EST -------
* RPM name is OK
* Source expect-5.43.0.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint of expectk looks OK
* rpmlint of expect-devel looks OK
* File list of expectk looks OK
* File list of expect-devel looks OK
* File list of expect looks OK

Needs work:
* Use of buildroot is not consistant
  (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags)
* BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
  (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros
  (wiki: QAChecklist item 7)
* The package should contain the text of the license
  (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines)

Minor:
* Duplicate BuildRequires: tcl-devel (by tk-devel), libX11-devel (by tk-devel), autoconf (by automake)

Notes:
* Please use {?dist} in the Release tag
* Can you use make DESTDIR instead of make INSTALLROOT?
* Replace /usr/share/man with %{_docdir} everywhere
* Are you willing to consider building with --disable-static. You're not packaging static libraries, and 
this saves some build time.
* If one of the packages is a gui application, a .desktop file should be installed (wiki: 
PackagingGuidelines#desktop)

rpmlint of expect-5.43.0-6.i386.rpm:E: expect invalid-soname /usr/lib/libexpect5.43.so 
libexpect5.43.so
E: expect script-without-shebang /usr/lib/expect5.43/pkgIndex.tcl
E: expect wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/expect5.43/cat-buffers "expect"
E: expect non-executable-script /usr/lib/expect5.43/cat-buffers 0644

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: expect

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-07 09:59 EST -------
Thanks!

* Use of buildroot is not consistant
Changed to use "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" everywhere.
* BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Fixed.
* Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros
/usr/share/man replaced by %{_mandir}
* The package should contain the text of the license
It does, in /usr/share/expect-*/README:
| I hereby place this software in the public domain.  NIST and I would            
| appreciate credit if this program or parts of it are used.

* Duplicate BuildRequires: tcl-devel (by tk-devel), libX11-devel (by tk-devel),
autoconf (by automake)
Because expect explicitly refers to tcl-devel and autoconf it IMHO should
BuildRequire it explicitly; this is unrelated to the question whether e.g.
automake depends on autoconf.
BuildRequires: libX11-devel removed, expect doesn't directly refer to libX11.

* Please use {?dist} in the Release tag
I'd rather not;  as long as each Fedora release uses a different NEVR, the dist
tag is IMHO just useless clutter.
* Can you use make DESTDIR instead of make INSTALLROOT?
No, Makefile.in doesn't support this aspect of GNU coding standards and the
variable is called INSTALL_ROOT.
* Replace /usr/share/man with %{_docdir} everywhere
... with %{_mandir}, done.
* Are you willing to consider building with --disable-static. You're not
packaging static libraries, and this saves some build time.
expect doesn't support --disable-static.
* If one of the packages is a gui application, a .desktop file should be installed
expectk is a programming language interpreter, I don't think it can be
considered a GUI application (try running it).

E: expect script-without-shebang /usr/lib/expect5.43/pkgIndex.tcl
* Fixed by making the file unexecutable
E: expect wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/expect5.43/cat-buffers "expect"
E: expect non-executable-script /usr/lib/expect5.43/cat-buffers 0644
* Both Fixed by removing the file altogether

E: expect invalid-soname /usr/lib/libexpect5.43.so libexpect5.43.so
I'll try to clean this up tomorrow.

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: expect

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-07 11:04 EST -------
Hi Miloslav

My comments inline:
> > The package should contain the text of the license
>
> It does, in /usr/share/expect-*/README:

I missed that one, thanks for pointing it out.
> > Duplicate BuildRequires: tcl-devel (by tk-devel), libX11-devel
> >
> > (by tk-devel), autoconf (by automake)
>
> Because expect explicitly refers to tcl-devel and autoconf it IMHO should
> BuildRequire it explicitly; this is unrelated to the question whether e.g.
> automake depends on autoconf.

Agreed.
> BuildRequires: libX11-devel removed, expect doesn't directly refer to libX11.

Thanks.
> > Please use {?dist} in the Release tag
>
> I'd rather not;  as long as each Fedora release uses a different NEVR, the
> dist tag is IMHO just useless clutter.

There are a number of pros and cons for the disttag. One pro is that it makes it
easier to do mass rebuilds (for example for FC7-test1). You're not required to
change it, of course, but please reconsider it.
Some more pros (and cons) at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DisttagsForRawHide
> > Can you use make DESTDIR instead of make INSTALLROOT?
>
> No, Makefile.in doesn't support this aspect of GNU coding standards and
> the variable is called INSTALL_ROOT.

Ok.

Can you let me know when you've updated the spec in cvs? I'll have another look
then.

Thanks,

Ruben

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: expect

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-07 23:48 EST -------
I have just built expect-5.43.0-7 with the abovementioned changes (and some
other cleanups).

This leaves:
E: expect invalid-soname /usr/lib/libexpect5.43.so libexpect5.43.so
I have no idea where did the rpmlint's rules for soname come from.  The upstream
libexpect man page explicitly recommends linking with -lexpect5.43, so changing
the soname would break this.

I can change the soname, but it's a deviation from upstream and an extra patch
to maintain, so I'd prefer to see some benefit to the change.  Ville, any idea
why rpmlint restricts soname values?

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: expect

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-14 16:47 EST -------
I can't say for sure, but perhaps this helps:

$ rpmlint -I invalid-soname
  invalid-soname :
  The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or
  lib<libname>-<major>.so.

The regexp used for the check is:

^lib.+(.so.[.0-9]+|-[.0-9]+.so)$

Someone more familiar with sonames should to comment on whether there's
something wrong with libexpect5.43.so.  My guess would be no, don't change it,
it's just unusual - cases like that are more often found in form like
libexpect5-43.so or libexpect-5.43.so.  Perhaps ask upstream what they think and
if they'd like to change towards a more usual looking sonames for future releases?

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: expect

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-19 19:40 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> I can't say for sure, but perhaps this helps:
>
> $ rpmlint -I invalid-soname
>   invalid-soname :
>   The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or
>   lib<libname>-<major>.so.
>
> The regexp used for the check is:
>
> ^lib.+(.so.[.0-9]+|-[.0-9]+.so)$
>
> Someone more familiar with sonames should to comment on whether there's
> something wrong with libexpect5.43.so.  My guess would be no, don't change it,
> it's just unusual - cases like that are more often found in form like
> libexpect5-43.so or libexpect-5.43.so.  Perhaps ask upstream what they think and
> if they'd like to change towards a more usual looking sonames for future releases?

The libfoo<major>.<minor>.so format is common for Tcl extensions (see Tcl and
Tk), but doesn't seem to be used much elsewhere.  As mentioned in comment #4,
packages that wish to link against libexpect often use the -lexpect5.43 in order
to guarantee a specific version.  This seems to be historical cruft that never
got replaced with a better alternative, and now 'libfoo<major>.<minor>.so is
common enough that I expect other things might break if it's changed now.

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: expect

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]             |[e-mail]

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: expect

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |MODIFIED

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-04-30 07:13 EST -------
expect-5.43.0-8 in devel contains abovementioned changes.

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225743

--- Comment #10 from Daniel Novotny  2010-03-29 09:38:14 EDT ---
ping?

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225743

--- Comment #11 from Vitezslav Crhonek  2010-03-29 11:10:26 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
[snip]
> BAD debuginfo package looks complete. - rpmlint warns
> expect-debuginfo.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm
> /usr/src/debug/expect-5.43/exp_main_tk.c
> (maybe that is nothing to worry about, let's see your comments)

Honestly, don't know why it's executable. Permissions are preserved from
upstream.
> BAD rpmlint is silent.
>   W: patch-not-applied Patch7: expect-5.43.0-tcl8.5.6.patch
>   (this minor warning can be easily corrected)

Fixed.
> OK final provides and requires look sane.
> OK %check is present and all tests pass.
>
> BAD shared libraries should be added to the regular linker search paths.
> every binary RPM package which contains shared library files (not just
> symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
> %post and %postun.
> -there's /usr/lib/libexpect5.43.so and no call to /sbin/ldconfig

I think that this library is used by Tcl only, which knows the path to the
library from /usr/lib64/tcl8.5/expect5.43/pkgIndex.tcl file.

[snip]

FYI, there's new version in devel branch...

[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225743

Daniel Novotny  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |RAWHIDE
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #12 from Daniel Novotny  2010-03-31 09:05:54 EDT ---
seems OK now, thanks, review+