[Bug 226189] Merge Review: neon

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Feb 18 06:40:08 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: Merge Review: neon


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226189





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-02-18 01:40 EST -------
Interestingly, once the package is installed, rpmlint produces the following
additional warnings:

W: neon unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libneon.so.25.0.5
/usr/lib64/libkrb5.so.3
W: neon unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libneon.so.25.0.5
/usr/lib64/libk5crypto.so.3
W: neon unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libneon.so.25.0.5
/lib64/libcom_err.so.2
W: neon unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libneon.so.25.0.5
/lib64/libresolv.so.2
W: neon unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libneon.so.25.0.5
/lib64/libdl.so.2

I will admit to not having a clue as to what might cause this or how to get rid
of it, as I've never seen this warning from rpmlint before.

I note there are a few Conflicts with an extremely old version of subversion. 
Even the subversion in FC1 was newer than the problem version, so there's really
no reason for the Conflicts bits to be there these days.

There seems to be a test suite and according to %changelog it was run at some
point but doesn't seem to be run now.  I added a %check section and got things
to run until:

./uri-tests: error while loading shared libraries: libz.so.1: failed to map
segment from shared object: Cannot allocate memory

Not sure what's up there, so probably best not to try to run the test suite.

The -devel package includes both a static library and a .la file.  According to
the guidelines, neither of these should be there except in exceptional
circumstances.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   b5513f88cb54c5f11e4c8348ee6c7ace9767b45c263c3a3ba8a5ce4e2b40a07a
   neon-0.25.5.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
O dist tag is not present (not required)
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible (LGPL)
* License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged (latest in the 0.25 series)
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
? rpmlint has complaints, but I'm not sure what they mean.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  neon-0.25.5-6.x86_64.rpm
   libneon.so.25()(64bit)
   neon = 0.25.5-6
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libcom_err.so.2()(64bit)
   libcrypto.so.6()(64bit)
   libexpat.so.0()(64bit)
   libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit)
   libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit)
   libk5crypto.so.3()(64bit)
   libkrb5.so.3()(64bit)
   libneon.so.25()(64bit)
   libssl.so.6()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)

  neon-devel-0.25.5-6.x86_64.rpm
   neon-devel = 0.25.5-6
  =
   /bin/sh
   expat-devel
   libneon.so.25()(64bit)
   neon = 0.25.5-6
   openssl-devel
   pkgconfig
   zlib-devel

* %check is not present; the included test suite doesn't actually run.
* shared libraries present; ldconfig is called properly.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are 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.
* a pkgconfig file is present and in the -devel package; pkgconfig is a
  dependency.
X a .la file is present, as well as a static library.

-- 
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