[Bug 458346] Review Request: gflags - Library for commandline flag processing

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458346


Till Maas <opensource at till.name> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |opensource at till.name




--- Comment #3 from Till Maas <opensource at till.name>  2008-08-13 16:37:12 EDT ---
[NOT OK] rpmlint output:
gflags-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
There is a html file in the doc/ dir of the tarball that contains
documenation, that would fit in the -devel subpackage imho.

[OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format

[OK] license allowed: BSD 3 clause
[OK] license matches shortname in License: BSD
[OK] license in tarball and included in %doc:
COPYING

[OK] package is code or permissive content:
[OK] Source0 is a working URL
[OK] Source0 matches Upstream:
bd4871398e9019b241d89cc21fb62def  gflags-0.9.tar.gz

[OK] Package builds on all platforms:
httsp://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=776073

[OK] BuildRequires are complete (koji builds)
(OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin 

[OK] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig
[OK] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage
[OK] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage:
no static libraries are packaged
[OK] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel
[OK] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[OK] .la files (libtool) are not included

[OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable)
[OK] Owns all created directories
[OK] no duplicates in %files
[OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section
[OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages
[OK] included filenames are in UTF-8

[OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 
[OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 
[OK] Consistent macro usage
[OK] %doc does not affect runtime

{OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)
{OK} well known BuildRoot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
{OK} PreReq not used
{OK} no duplication of system libraries
{OK} no rpath
{NOT OK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
You should change the make install to:
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p"

{OK} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
{OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used
{OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and
%{buildroot} on %install and %clean)
{OK} no Conflicts
{OK} nothing installed in /srv
{OK} Changelog in allowed format
<OK> Sane Provides: and Requires:

{OK} Follows Naming Guidelines

Other stuff:
- this line should be removed, because no static libraries are build:
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name "*.a" -delete

- Can you maybe submit an patch to upstream that changes the installation of
the
  header files within the automake stuff or file a bug? Then you could remove
  these lines:
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/%{name}
mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/google/*.h
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/%{name}/

- On my system no rpath is set in the libraries, why did you use chrpath?
- Why don't you install the python stuff?
- not the NOT OK for rpmlint and timestamps above

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