Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: lzma-sdk457 - SDK for lzma compression
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747092
Summary: Review Request: lzma-sdk457 - SDK for lzma compression Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tcallawa@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/lzma-sdk457.spec SRPM URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: LZMA SDK provides the documentation, samples, header files, libraries, and tools you need to develop applications that use LZMA compression.
LZMA is default and general compression method of 7z format in 7-Zip compression program (7-zip.org). LZMA provides high compression ratio and very fast decompression.
LZMA is an improved version of famous LZ77 compression algorithm. It was improved in way of maximum increasing of compression ratio, keeping high decompression speed and low memory requirements for decompressing.
PACKAGER NOTE: The LZMA SDK is entirely ABI/API incompatible across multiple releases, and it is not uncommon for FOSS libraries and applications that wanted or needed LZMA support to have picked the SDK that was current at the time, written to it, then embedded a copy of it. There is already a "lzma-sdk" package at version 4.65. This is a package for version 4.57, which is needed by physfs and physfs2. It does not conflict with the lzma-sdk package.
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=747092
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |747093
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=747092
Nelson Marques nmo.marques@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nmo.marques@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Nelson Marques nmo.marques@gmail.com 2011-11-04 05:33:59 EDT --- Hi,
Looks fine to me, just two doubts:
- %{_isa}: this macro was completly unknown to me, I've checked the documentation on Fedora wiki. Is it mandatory to use ? - The shared library is unstripped. In which situations can people let it slide in ?
NM
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=747092
Martin Preisler mpreisle@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mpreisle@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mpreisle@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Martin Preisler mpreisle@redhat.com 2011-11-18 05:39:43 EST --- Taking this for a 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=747092
--- Comment #3 from Martin Preisler mpreisle@redhat.com 2011-11-18 06:18:29 EST --- Nelson Marques: %{_isa} makes sure the dependencies' architectures match. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
spot: This is my first formal review ever, please don't hesitate to tell me of any missteps ;-)
rpmlint's output is clean.
$ rpmlint lzma-sdk457.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/lzma-sdk457-* 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/*/lzma-sdk457-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
koji test build (f16) passes fine: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3523477
MUST checklist: [X] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [?] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . [X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] [X] 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.[4] [X] The spec file must be written in American English. [5] [X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] [X] 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. [X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] (tested on amd64) [X] 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. [8] [X] 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. [X] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] [X] 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] [X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] [X] 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. [12] [X] 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. [13] [X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] [X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [15] [X] Each package must consistently use macros. [16] [X] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] [X] 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). [18] [X] 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. [18] [X] Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] [X] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] [X] 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. [19] [X] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] [X] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] [X] 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. [22] [X] 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. [23] [X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
SHOULD checklist: [X] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [25] [X] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26] [X] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] [X] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [28] (done via koji - i686 and x86_64) [X] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [X] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] [X] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [21] [X] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30] [X] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [31] [X] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]
*** The only thing I am not sure about then is the name (but it classifies as a compat package so I guess it is acceptable) and the unstripped shared object (isn't this done automagically, the debuginfo subpackages usually are created without any additional effort). ***
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=747092
--- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2011-12-09 14:30:57 EST --- I really could use this package to get physfs updated... are there any items holding up this 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=747092
Martin Preisler mpreisle@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Martin Preisler mpreisle@redhat.com 2011-12-11 14:24:33 EST --- I was just unsure about the name and forgot to follow up on this. Sorry for the delay, package 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=747092
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2011-12-12 21:20:34 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=747092
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=747092
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-12-15 15:41:47 EST --- lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc15
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=747092
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-12-15 15:41:56 EST --- lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc16
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=747092
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-12-16 14:48:16 EST --- lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
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=747092
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc16 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-01-03 20:55:51
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-03 20:55:51 EST --- lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
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=747092
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc16 |lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc15
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-03 20:57:10 EST --- lzma-sdk457-4.57-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla