[Bug 196401] New: Review Request: mozldap

[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=196401

Summary: Review Request: mozldap
           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]

Spec URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/HEAD/mozldap.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/HEAD/mozldap-5.17-3.src.rpm
Description: mozldap is the Mozilla LDAP C SDK (http://www.mozilla.org/directory).  This package contains 3 sub-packages:
mozldap - the client runtime libraries
mozldap-tools - the client command line programs such as ldapsearch, ldapmodify, et. al.
mozldap-devel - the headers, examples, etc.

Note that this package is not intended to replace the current openldap client libraries included with Fedora Core and RHEL.  Instead, the mozilla ldap c sdk is used by mozilla/thunderbird, Fedora Directory Server, Red Hat Directory Server, and Red Hat Certificate System, among others.  Those products cannot use openldap and must use mozldap - see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181691 for more details.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-22 21:02 EST -------
181691 is private; we cannot view it.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-22 21:53 EST -------
Sorry.  Here is an excerpt that explains the differences between openldap and
mozldap:
[The reason why we can just replace openldap with mozldap] "... is that there
are dozens of apps that require the openldap
client libraries.  This is a problem for two reasons:
1) the openldap api is different than the mozilla ldap api, in terms of the
function parameters, constants, and behavior.  In many cases it is only slightly
different, and we might be able to mitigate this by either writing a shim layer
on top of the mozilla ldap c sdk that makes it look like openldap, or by simply
changing the mozilla ldap c sdk to make it like openldap.  I prefer the latter.
2) openldap clients expect to be able to use openssl for crypto, while mozilla
uses NSS.  I don't know of an easy way around this, except perhaps to just
automatically import CA certs listed in /etc/openldap/ldap.conf to an NSS cert
db.  Similarly for clients that use cert based auth, import their
keys/certs/password files."

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |196393

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-27 12:00 EST -------
mozldap depends on svrcore-devel

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|[e-mail] |[e-mail]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-13 10:13 EST -------
I don't have sponsor status, but can do the review and then kick someone who
does have sponsor status when the package is approved.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-13 16:55 EST -------
Initial feedback on first pass through the spec and some rpmlint'ing:

1) Should add %dist tag

2) Source0: should be a URL, if not, explain why

3) Remove useless Provides:

4) Requires: on sub-packages should be explicit %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
instead of >=

5) Use %configure instead of ./configure

6) Should quote around "$RPM_OPT_FLAGS", I've seen issues if not done

7) %install is missing buildroot cleaning

8) don't create directories/files in the buildroot in %build, needs to be done
in %install (since the first thing in %install is supposed to be a buildroot
purging).

9) extraneous slashes in some path names (ex: $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir})

10) standard practice in Fedora is to symlink back to the actual .so rather than
create a trail of symlinks

11) preferred ldconfig post/postun format is "%post -p /sbin/ldconfig"

12) %defattr should be (-,root,root,-)

13) lots of extra, unnecessary %dir lines in various %files sections

14) unversioned .so files must go in -devel package when there are also
versioned .so's

15) rpmlint complains about invalid sonames, I presume this is a side-effect of
renaming them:

E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libssldap-5.0.so.5.17 libssldap50.so
E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libprldap-5.0.so.5.17 libprldap50.so
E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libldap-5.0.so.5.17 libldap50.so

16) the binaries all define rpaths, which is a big no-no

The following spec diff should address all but 15 and 16:

----------
--- mozldap-orig.spec   2006-07-13 15:58:24.000000000 -0400
+++ mozldap.spec        2006-07-13 16:50:58.000000000 -0400
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
 Summary:          Mozilla LDAP C SDK
 Name:             mozldap
 Version:          %{major}.%{minor}
-Release:          3
+Release:          3%{?dist}
 License:          MPL/GPL/LGPL
 URL:              http://www.mozilla.org/directory/csdk.html
 Group:            System Environment/Libraries
@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@
 BuildRequires:    %{nspr_name}-devel >= %{nspr_version}
 BuildRequires:    %{nss_name}-devel >= %{nss_version}
 BuildRequires:    %{svrcore_name} >= %{svrcore_version}
-Provides:         mozldap

+# Only available from cvs, tag LDAPCSDK_5_1_7_RTM
 Source0:          %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

%description
@@ -35,11 +35,10 @@
 %package tools
 Summary:          Tools for the Mozilla LDAP C SDK
 Group:            System Environment/Base
-Requires:         %{name} >= %{version}-%{release}
+Requires:         %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
 BuildRequires:    %{nspr_name}-devel >= %{nspr_version}
 BuildRequires:    %{nss_name}-devel >= %{nss_version}
 BuildRequires:    %{svrcore_name} >= %{svrcore_version}
-Provides:         %{name}-tools

%description tools
 The mozldap-tools package provides the ldapsearch,
@@ -50,10 +49,9 @@
 %package devel
 Summary:          Development libraries and examples for Mozilla LDAP C SDK
 Group:            Development/Libraries
-Requires:         %{name} >= %{version}-%{release}
+Requires:         %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
 Requires:         %{nspr_name}-devel >= %{nspr_version}
 Requires:         %{nss_name}-devel >= %{nss_version}
-Provides:         %{name}-devel

%description devel
 Header and Library files for doing development with the Mozilla LDAP C SDK
@@ -64,7 +62,8 @@
 arg64="--enable-64bit"
 %endif
 cd mozilla/directory/c-sdk
-./configure $arg64 --with-system-svrcore --enable-optimize --disable-debug
+%configure $arg64 --with-system-svrcore --enable-optimize --disable-debug
+#./configure $arg64 --with-system-svrcore --enable-optimize --disable-debug

%build

@@ -73,7 +72,7 @@
 export BUILD_OPT

# Generate symbolic info for debuggers
-XCFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
+XCFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
 export XCFLAGS

PKG_CONFIG_ALLOW_SYSTEM_LIBS=1
@@ -90,9 +89,12 @@
 cd mozilla/directory/c-sdk
 make BUILDCLU=1 HAVE_SVRCORE=1 BUILD_OPT=1

+%install
+%{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+
 # Set up our package file
-%{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/pkgconfig
-%{__cat} %{name}.pc.in | sed -e "s,%%libdir%%,%{_libdir},g" \
+%{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/pkgconfig
+%{__cat} mozilla/directory/c-sdk/%{name}.pc.in | sed -e
"s,%%libdir%%,%{_libdir},g" \
                           -e "s,%%prefix%%,%{_prefix},g" \
                           -e "s,%%exec_prefix%%,%{_prefix},g" \
                           -e "s,%%includedir%%,%{_includedir}/%{name},g" \
@@ -100,69 +102,63 @@
                           -e "s,%%NSS_VERSION%%,%{nss_version},g" \
                           -e "s,%%SVRCORE_VERSION%%,%{svrcore_version},g" \
                           -e "s,%%MOZLDAP_VERSION%%,%{version},g" > \
-                          $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}.pc
-
-%install
+                          $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}.pc

# There is no make install target so we'll do it ourselves.

-%{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_includedir}/%{name}
-%{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}
-%{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}
+%{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/%{name}
+%{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}
+%{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/%{name}

# Copy the binary libraries we want
 for file in libssldap50.so libprldap50.so libldap50.so
 do
-  %{__install} -m 755 mozilla/dist/lib/$file $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}
+  %{__install} -m 755 mozilla/dist/lib/$file $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}
 done

# Copy the binaries we want
 for file in ldapsearch ldapmodify ldapdelete ldapcmp ldapcompare
 do
-  %{__install} -m 755 mozilla/dist/bin/$file $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}
+  %{__install} -m 755 mozilla/dist/bin/$file $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/%{name}
 done

# Copy the include files
 for file in mozilla/dist/public/ldap/*.h
 do
-  %{__install} -m 644 $file $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_includedir}/%{name}
+  %{__install} -m 644 $file $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/%{name}
 done

# Copy the developer files
 %{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}
 cp -r mozilla/directory/c-sdk/ldap/examples $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}
-%{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/etc
+%{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}%{name}/etc
 %{__install} -m 644 mozilla/directory/c-sdk/ldap/examples/xmplflt.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/etc
 %{__install} -m 644
mozilla/directory/c-sdk/ldap/libraries/libldap/ldaptemplates.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/etc
 %{__install} -m 644
mozilla/directory/c-sdk/ldap/libraries/libldap/ldapfilter.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/etc
 %{__install} -m 644
mozilla/directory/c-sdk/ldap/libraries/libldap/ldapsearchprefs.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/etc

# Rename the libraries and create the symlinks
-cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}
+cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}
 for file in libssldap50.so libprldap50.so libldap50.so
 do
   mv $file $file.%{major}.%{minor}
   ln -s $file.%{major}.%{minor} $file.%{major}
-  ln -s $file.%{major} $file
+  ln -s $file.%{major}.%{minor} $file
 done

%clean
 %{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

-%post
-/sbin/ldconfig >/dev/null 2>/dev/null
+%post -p /sbin/ldconfig

-%postun
-/sbin/ldconfig >/dev/null 2>/dev/null
+%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

%files
-%defattr(0755,root,root)
-%{_libdir}/libssldap50.so
-%{_libdir}/libprldap50.so
-%{_libdir}/libldap50.so
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
+%doc mozilla/directory/c-sdk/README.rpm
 %{_libdir}/libssldap50.so.%{major}
 %{_libdir}/libprldap50.so.%{major}
 %{_libdir}/libldap50.so.%{major}
@@ -171,8 +167,8 @@
 %{_libdir}/libldap50.so.%{major}.%{minor}

%files tools
-%defattr(0755,root,root)
-%attr(0755,root,root) %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
+%dir %{_libdir}/%{name}
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/ldapsearch
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/ldapmodify
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/ldapdelete
@@ -180,13 +176,12 @@
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/ldapcompare

%files devel
-%defattr(0644,root,root)
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
+%{_libdir}/libssldap50.so
+%{_libdir}/libprldap50.so
+%{_libdir}/libldap50.so
 %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}.pc
-%attr(0755,root,root) %dir %{_includedir}/%{name}
 %{_includedir}/%{name}
-%attr(0755,root,root) %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
-%attr(0755,root,root) %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/etc
-%attr(0755,root,root) %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/examples
 %{_datadir}/%{name}

%changelog

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-13 16:58 EST -------
Forgot to add 14b: add "%doc mozilla/directory/c-sdk/README.rpm"

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-17 13:57 EST -------
> standard practice in Fedora is to symlink back to the actual .so rather
>
> than create a trail of symlinks

I'm not sure what this means?
> unversioned .so files must go in -devel package when there are
>
> also versioned .so's

But then if someone links an app against libldap50.so (in the devel package),
how does the app find libldap50.so at runtime when it doesn't exist on the
system, only libldap50.so.5.17?
> rpmlint complains about invalid sonames, I presume this is a side-effect
>
> of renaming them:
> E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libssldap-5.0.so.5.17 libssldap50.so
> E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libprldap-5.0.so.5.17 libprldap50.so
> E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libldap-5.0.so.5.17 libldap50.so

Where do /usr/lib64/libssldap-5.0.so.5.17 and the others come from?  All of my
lib names should begin with lib[ss,pr]ldap50

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-17 14:25 EST -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> > standard practice in Fedora is to symlink back to the actual .so rather
> >
> > than create a trail of symlinks
>
> I'm not sure what this means?

In this bit of the spec...

for file in libssldap50.so libprldap50.so libldap50.so
do
  mv $file $file.%{major}.%{minor}
  ln -s $file.%{major}.%{minor} $file.%{major}
  ln -s $file.%{major} $file
done

...$file is a symlink to $file.major, which is a symlink to $file.major.minor.
$file should just symlink up to $file.major.minor instead.
> > unversioned .so files must go in -devel package when there are
> >
> > also versioned .so's
>
> But then if someone links an app against libldap50.so (in the devel package),
> how does the app find libldap50.so at runtime when it doesn't exist on the
> system, only libldap50.so.5.17?

I can't say I know the specifics of it, but I know it works. :) Its explicitly
called out that way in the packaging guidelines, and does work for umpteen
libraries already in Fedora Core and Extras.
> > rpmlint complains about invalid sonames, I presume this is a side-effect
> >
> > of renaming them:
> > E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libssldap-5.0.so.5.17 libssldap50.so
> > E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libprldap-5.0.so.5.17 libprldap50.so
> > E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libldap-5.0.so.5.17 libldap50.so
>
> Where do /usr/lib64/libssldap-5.0.so.5.17 and the others come from?  All of my
> lib names should begin with lib[ss,pr]ldap50

Bah, that was from me playing around a bit to see if it was just the file name
it didn't like. The actual output to be concerned about is:

E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libssldap50.so.5.17 libssldap50.so
E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libprldap50.so.5.17 libprldap50.so
E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libldap50.so.5.17 libldap50.so

I believe the versioning should be encoded somewhere in the shared lib, but at
build time, unversioned libs are being created. A 'strings
/usr/lib(64)/lib<whatever>' for any library with a versioning includes
lib<whatever.so.<version> in the output, while lib*ldap50.so.* only includes
lib*ldap50.so. That being the case, it looks like either something needs to be
done at build time to put the right versioning info in there, or only the
unversioned lib should be packaged.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-17 14:28 EST -------
Ah, and the versioning being encoded in the shared lib has something to do with
how the linking against the devel package works when the devel package isn't
installed at runtime. Or so I believe... :)

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-10-18 18:51 EST -------
There is a new version of mozldap - version 6.0.0.  I would like to add this
version to Fedora instead of the previous 5.x version.

Spec URL:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/v6.0.0/src/mozldap.spec
SRPM URL:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/v6.0.0/src/mozldap6-6.0.0-1.src.rpm

The general description is the same.  v6.0.0 adds support for BER types in the
API, adds support for SASL/GSSAPI/DIGEST MD5, and has improved IPv6 support,
among other minor features and several bug fixes.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-11-20 16:24 EST -------
Eep, sorry for the delay, this has been sitting in my queue for a while now...
Anyhow, just did a run-through of the mozlap6 package. We're in much better
shape with this version! The only remaining issue I see at the moment is that
rpmlint is still complaining about invalid sonames:

$ rpmlint /build/RPMS/x86_64/mozldap6-6.0.0-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm 
E: mozldap6 invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libprldap60.so.6.0.0 libprldap60.so
E: mozldap6 invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libssldap60.so.6.0.0 libssldap60.so
E: mozldap6 invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libldap60.so.6.0.0 libldap60.so

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-11-20 17:01 EST -------
I'm not sure what it is complaining about.  Does it not like the fact that the
soname is libname60.so, and not libname-6.so or libname.so.6?  The name
libldap60.so is a convention for historical purposes, and also serves to
distinguish the library name from the openldap libldap-2.3.so etc.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-11-20 17:07 EST -------
No, it doesn't like that the soname is libname60.so.6.0.0 instead of just
libname60.so, a side-effect of it being compiled at libname60.so, then moved.
Check out the last bit of comment #8. I believe libname60.so.6.0.0 needs to be
encoded into the library at compile-time somehow.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-12-08 09:46 EST -------
You need to BR cyrus-sasl-devel

@@ -28,2 +29,3 @@
 BuildRequires:    %{svrcore_name} >= %{svrcore_version}
+BuildRequires:    cyrus-sasl-devel

Wrt lib*ldap60.so: Upstream seems to prefer to disambiguate the library by
changing the core name (the embedded "60") and therefore sees no urge to use
properly versioned libraries.

You can either
a) go along and *not* do any symlinking on the packaging level. E.g. the 'so's
   remain in the core package and there are no so symlinks in *-devel
b) clean it up and rename the SONAMEs from lib*ldap60.so -> lib*ldap.so.6 with
   a patch against the build in the tarball.

a) is quick and dirty and matches current upstream methology, b) is clean and
proper, but requires you to get the patch submitted upstream, otherwise we'll be
breaking library ABI.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-12-08 13:07 EST -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> You can either
> a) go along and *not* do any symlinking on the packaging level. E.g. the 'so's
>    remain in the core package and there are no so symlinks in *-devel
> b) clean it up and rename the SONAMEs from lib*ldap60.so -> lib*ldap.so.6 with
>    a patch against the build in the tarball.
>
> a) is quick and dirty and matches current upstream methology, b) is clean and
> proper, but requires you to get the patch submitted upstream, otherwise we'll be
> breaking library ABI.

Note that mozldap follows the Mozilla library naming conventions that are used
by NSPR and NSS which have been in Fedora for a while now (e.g. libnspr4.so,
libnss3.so, etc.).  So, unless there are plans to also convert those libraries
to the proper naming convention, I think it suffices to stick with
libldap60.so.6.0.0.  It should not be a big deal to put the proper so name in
the shared libraries, so that the main package will have 
libldap60.so.6.0.0
and the devel package will have
libldap60.so

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-12-08 20:30 EST -------
Going with the Mozilla library naming conventions is OK, but these don't suggest
adding a more or less artificial .6.0.0 suffix (artificial since it's part of
the packaging layer and not upstream intention). If you check NSPR and NSS they
keep the soname as is, e..g don't add a versioning suffix, and thus the
respective devel file has no library parts at all, not even symlinks.

So it's a) in comment #14. I played a bit with the specfile and implemented a),
I'll post the patch in the next comment.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-12-08 20:38 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=143200)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=143200&action=vie...)
specfile patch

This patch makes rpmlint happy and the package more inline with both Fedora and
Mozilla standards. There is still room for improvement, e.g. eliminating the
major/minor/subminor macros, but I wouldn't block on that. Please test this
together with Toshio's new svrcore package (e.g. through the SDK acceptance
test).

* Fri Dec  8 2006 Axel Thimm  - 6.0.0-2
- Rename to mozldap.
- move configure step to %%build section.
- clean up excessive use of %%defines, make more Fedora like.
- fix mismatching soname issue.
- generic specfile cosmetics.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-12-15 14:27 EST -------
Works fine, and with the new svrcore as well.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |219869
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

Bug 196401 depends on bug 196393, which changed state.

Bug 196393 Summary: Review Request: svrcore
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393

What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-01-09 14:17 EST -------
I've added libldif to the public API of mozldap, and changed the version to
6.0.1.  New files:
SPEC URL:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/v6.0.1/src/mozldap.spec
SRPM URL:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/v6.0.1/src/mozldap-6.0.1-1.src.rpm
SRC URL:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/v6.0.1/src/mozldap-6.0.1.tar.gz

Axel, I have added back some of the macros to the spec file.  The macros make
our life easier as maintainers - we share the same spec file between RHEL-4
(which uses different nspr and nss) and Solaris.  I hope that this is acceptable.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-01-09 16:13 EST -------
rpmlint complains about 
E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib/libssldap60.so libssldap60.so
E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib/libldif60.so libldif60.so
E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib/libldap60.so libldap60.so
E: mozldap invalid-soname /usr/lib/libprldap60.so libprldap60.so

we should get rid of if [ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT != "/" ] ; then %{__rm} -rf 
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT ; fi in the %build and %install section of the spec and add 
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to the start of %install  and change %clean  to rm -rf 
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

md5sums match
6f651d0e5c4b04352c64207623f8ef4f  mozldap-6.0.1.tar.gz
6f651d0e5c4b04352c64207623f8ef4f  ../SOURCES/mozldap-6.0.1.tar.gz

builds in mock for FC-6

license is ok 
Owns its own directories

Fix the %build %install and %clean lines and its APPROVED

Feel free to fix when importing

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

[e-mail] changed:

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

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-01-09 17:00 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=145200)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=145200&action=vie...)
spec file diffs

Thanks Dennis.	Here are the final files:
SPEC URL:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/v6.0.1/src/mozldap.spec

SRPM URL:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/v6.0.1/src/mozldap-6.0.1-2.src.rpm

SOURCE URL:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/v6.0.1/src/mozldap-6.0.1.tar.gz

The attachment is the diffs in the spec file proposed by Dennis.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-01-09 17:15 EST -------
Successfully imported into /cvs/extras.  Submitted branch request.

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[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: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=196401

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora