[Bug 248301] Review Request: lzma - lzma compression tools

[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: lzma - lzma compression tools


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248301





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2007-08-07 09:23 EST -------
First for your comment 14:
(In reply to comment #14)
> > * If -devel subpackage is licensed under LGPL, the corresponding
> >   documents should be installed as a %doc of -devel subpackage
> >   (i.e. add LICENSE.LIB to %doc of -devel subpackage). 
> COPYING.LIB has been added to -devel subpackage.
  - Well, -libs package is also licensed under LGPL and
    it is more proper that LICENSE.LIB be owned by -libs, not -devel
    (or you can have LICENSE.LIB owned by both -libs and -devel).

> > * Usually the dependency against main or subpackage should be
> >   version-release specific.
> >   i.e. main package should have:
> >   Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> Main package seems to not require -libs to work.
   - Umm... this is undesirable. I checked the build log and for example:
-------------------------------------------------------
/bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -I../../src/liblzmadec -O2 -g
-pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -static  -o lzmadec 
lzmadec.o ../../src/liblzmadec/liblzmadec.la 
mkdir .libs
gcc -I../../src/liblzmadec -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386
-mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -o lzmadec
lzmadec.o  ../../src/liblzmadec/.libs/liblzmadec.a
make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/lzma-4.32.0beta3/src/lzmadec'
--------------------------------------------------------
     Here /usr/bin/lzmadec needs liblzmadec.la but liblzmadec.la is
     used staticly, which must not be and /usr/bin/lzmadec should be
     linked against liblzmadec.so

     For this package you can disable static link against liblzmadec.so
     by passing "--diable-static" to configure. You also have to kill
     unneeded rpath. 
     (check "Removing Rpath" of
      http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines)
     The following seems to work.
--------------------------------------------------------
%build
CFLAGS="%{optflags} -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" \
CXXFLAGS="%{optflags} -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" \
%configure --disable-static

# kill rpath
sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool
sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool

make %{?_smp_mflags}
--------------------------------------------------------

> >   and -devel package should have:
> >   Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> -devel does not require main package to work, but if I remove it 
> rpmlint complains ?
  - The reason I said so is because your -4 spec file had
---------------------------------------------------------
Requires:       %{name} = %{version}
---------------------------------------------------------
    for -devel package. However actually -devel package does not
    require main package so you can remove the line.

> The devel package only provides a way to decompress lzma archive, not to
> compress. As you suggest, I remove it. Should lzma-libs become lzmadec-libs ?
  - Just okay with lzma-libs.

> Done, but I have to use __install instead of _install ?
  - Sorry, my typo.

Then another issues are:
* Source
  - The newest seems to be beta5.

* License
  - License tag policy is recently changed and we must follow
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

    As far as I checked this source code,
    - -libs and -devel package should be tagged as "LGPLv2+"
      (this means that License field in spec file
       should be tagged as "LGPLv2+")
    - For main package, I cannot find the phrase "and any later" on
      LzmaDecode.c so I guess this code is licensed under strict LGPL
      version 2.
      However (according to the license matrix) LGPLv2 can be
      relicensed to GPLv2+ (GPL version 2 and any later), and other
      parts are licensed under LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+,
      so the main package can be tagged with "GPLv2+".  

* -devel package still has %defattr(-,root,root)  

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.