[Bug 243254] Review Request: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib - Cross Compiled zlib Library targeted at arm-gp2x-linux
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Aug 6 15:45:13 UTC 2007
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: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib - Cross Compiled zlib Library targeted at arm-gp2x-linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243254
kevin at tigcc.ticalc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From kevin at tigcc.ticalc.org 2007-08-06 11:45 EST -------
MUST Items:
+ rpmlint output:
+ SRPM:
W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib invalid-license zlib
This is the F7 rpmlint being out of date. :-)
E: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib configure-without-libdir-spec
This one's OK for a cross library. (There's no 64-bit GP2X ;-).)
+ noarch RPM:
W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.so
W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.a
W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/include/zconf.h
W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/include/zlib.h
OK because this is a cross-development package, and these are all target
development files. It would make no sense to make a separate devel vs. runtime
part because we aren't going to run ARM GP2X binaries on i386/x86_64/ppc/...
Fedora anyway.
E: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib
library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.so.1.2.3
E: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib
library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.so.1.2.3
OK, as this a target library (twice the same...) which isn't even in the
ldconfig search path. The required symlinks are already there anyway.
W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib invalid-license zlib
Again, the F7 rpmlint being out of date.
E: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.a
E: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/lib/libz.so.1.2.3
Again, this is OK because those are target files.
W: arm-gp2x-linux-zlib non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-gp2x-linux
This one's OK too for a cross-library package.
+ named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ spec file name matches base package name
+ Packaging Guidelines:
+ License zlib OK, matches actual license
+ No known patent problems
+ No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components
+ Complies with the FHS (with the cross-toolchain exception
for %{_prefix}/%{target})
+ proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires, BuildRequires, Summary,
Description
+ no non-UTF-8 characters
+ relevant documentation is included
+ It would make no sense to use RPM_OPT_FLAGS here because this is a target
package, which is built using a cross GCC which won't understand stuff
like -fstack-protector, and for which x86 -march and -mtune switches definitely
don't make sense. Thus the omission of RPM_OPT_FLAGS is correct.
+ no -debuginfo package because this is noarch
+ no host static libraries nor .la files
(I think we can give the target static library a pass. This isn't a Fedora
target, so trying to apply our static library policies to the target wouldn't
make much sense.)
+ no duplicated system libraries
+ no rpaths (no host executables or libraries at all, I also ran readelf -d
on the target shared library to make sure and there's no rpath there either)
+ no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply
+ no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply
+ no GUI programs, so no .desktop file present or needed
+ no timestamp-clobbering file commands
+ _smp_mflags used
+ scriptlets are valid
+ not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply
+ no conflicts
+ complies with all the legal guidelines
+ license contained in README which is included as %doc
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ source matches upstream:
MD5SUM: dee233bf288ee795ac96a98cc2e369b6
SHA1SUM: 967e280f284d02284b0cd8872a8e2e04bfdc7283
The patch also matches the one in the native package.
+ builds on at least one arch (F7 i386 live system)
+ no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed
+ no missing BR
+ no translations, so translation/locale guidelines don't apply
+ no host shared libraries, so no ldconfig calls needed
+ package not relocatable
+ ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories
owned by another package)
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ permissions set properly (%defattr present)
+ %clean section present and correct
+ macros used where possible (%configure not used for several reasons,
including it playing jokes with --target and using host-specific RPM_OPT_FLAGS)
+ no non-code content
+ no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed
+ %doc files not required at runtime
+ no host headers, target headers are OK in this cross-development package
+ no host static libraries, so no -static package needed
+ no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed
+ no host shared libraries, so .so symlink guidelines don't apply
+ no -devel package, so the guideline to require the main package in it doesn't
apply
+ no .la files
+ no GUI programs, so no .desktop file needed
+ buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install
(same nitpick about mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as for arm-gp2x-linux-binutils)
+ all filenames are valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
+ license already included upstream (in README)
+ no translations for description and summary provided by upstream
* Skipping mock test.
* Skipping the "all architectures" test, I only have i386.
+ package functions as described:
All the examples from the zlib source code compile and link (except gzlog.c
which doesn't include a main function, just utility functions).
+ scriptlets are sane
+ no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel
should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is
irrelevant
+ no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant
+ no file dependencies
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list