[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


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    This is the F7 rpmlint being out of date.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    Again, the F7 rpmlint being out of date.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, 
  + 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 
+ 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

+ 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 
+ no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant
+ no file dependencies


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