[Bug 209522] Review Request: libsmi - A library to access SMI MIB information

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: libsmi - A library to access SMI MIB information


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209522


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-10-05 20:52 EST -------
Looks to have some rpath issues:
   E: libsmi binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/smidiff ['/usr/lib64']
   E: libsmi binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/smiquery ['/usr/lib64']
   E: libsmi binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/smidump ['/usr/lib64']
   E: libsmi binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/smilint ['/usr/lib64']

Passing --disable-rpath to configure didn't help.  Adding
LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool to the make line, and then deleting the resulting .a
file down in %install where the .la files are removed, made things work for me.

I also enabled make check, and tacke on an '||:' so the build wouldn't fail. 
Two tests indeed did fail as expected.

Once the rpath stuff is fixed, things look pretty good.  I'll assume that's done
for the purposes of this review.

* source files match upstream:
   c904b124bcaad692e04fdf2f0cff38bb  libsmi-0.4.5.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (needed to add libtool to fix rpath issue)
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent (after rpath fixes)
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libsmi-0.4.5-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   config(libsmi) = 0.4.5-1.fc6
   libsmi.so.2()(64bit)
   libsmi = 0.4.5-1.fc6
  =
   /bin/sh
   /sbin/ldconfig
   config(libsmi) = 0.4.5-1.fc6
   gawk
   libsmi.so.2()(64bit)
   wget

  libsmi-devel-0.4.5-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   libsmi-devel = 0.4.5-1.fc6
  =
   automake
   libsmi = 0.4.5-1.fc6
   libsmi.so.2()(64bit)
   pkgconfig

* %check is present and all (expected) tests pass:
   PASS: smilint-smiv2.test
   PASS: smidump-smiv1.test
   PASS: smidump-smiv2.test
   PASS: smidump-sming.test
   PASS: smidump-mosy.test
   PASS: smidump-tree.test
   PASS: smidump-types.test
   PASS: smidump-imports.test
   PASS: smidump-identifiers.test
   PASS: smidump-metrics.test
   PASS: smidump-xml.test
   PASS: smidump-python.test
   FAIL: smidump-cm.test
   PASS: smidump-corba.test
   PASS: smidump-jax.test
   PASS: smidump-netsnmp.test
   PASS: smidump-orig-smiv2.test
   PASS: smidump-smiv2-smiv2.test
   PASS: parser.test
   FAIL: smidiff.test

* no shared libraries present:
   ldconfig is called as necessary.
   unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel subpackage.
* pkgconfig file is in the -devel subpackage.
* no libtool .la droppings (explicitly removed)
* no static libraries

So if you agree with my method of suppressing the rpath warnings, you can
consider this APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.