[Bug 248231] Review Request: ustr - String library, very low memory overhead, simple to import

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jul 27 17:53:29 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: ustr - String library, very low memory overhead, simple to import


------- Additional Comments From james.antill at redhat.com  2007-07-27 13:53 EST -------
(Assuming that you are the upstream of this package
 and you have not yet released 1.0.1 formally)


* For /sbin/ldconfig, usually we don't write Requires(post) and
  so on.

 Why? What is best practice, no deps. or just a normal requires?

* rpm (sub)packages which contains pkgconfig .pc files should
  have "Requires: pkgconfig"

 This is true even if it's not required. From the upstream POV it isn't
required, it can be used if you find pkg-config easier to use ... or you can
just do -lustr etc.
 Obviously I can add it to the rpm anyway, if you want though.

* mock build log says that fedora specific compilation flags are
  not honored.

 Ok, I thought:

CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-%optflags}" ; export CFLAGS ;

...was enough, as that's what the %configure macro seems to be using. I can't
find any documentation on what I should be calling here (there is no ./configure).

* The following directories are not owned by any packages.

 My bad, I assumed dir/* got dir too.

* Usually the dependency for other subpackages must be
  version-release specific. i.e. -devel package should have
  Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}, for example


* Use %_includedir for /usr/include.

 In the %files section? Fixed.

* I have not installed ustr yet, however would you check the
  dependencies between subpackages?
  For example, why does -debug subpackage require -static subpackage?
  (well, this is a question)

 I can't remember :(. I've changed debug to just depend on devel, and
debug-static to depend on debug.

* For summary
(In reply to comment #2)
> * summary seems all the same for all packages??
>  This is common for libraries, no? For instance glib2 and glib2-devel 
> have the same summary but different descriptions ... 

  Strange... Anyway as you can try "rpmdev-newspec libfoo" to
  create skeleton spec file, usually summary and description for
  -devel subpackage are like:

Summary:	Development files for %{name}

 Ok, I guess the other stuff just hasn't been fixed yet. Fixed.

* And please increase release number
  (Perhaps you want to set release number as 1 when review is done

   and wants to set release number 0 during review, but please
   don't. At least please increase release number as 0.1, 0.2, ...)

 Yeh, I didn't want rel=1 until it's 1.0.1 is released upstream, I'll upload a
0.2 version as soon as I can find out what to do about:

 requires for pkg-config
 requires for ldconfig

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.

More information about the package-review mailing list