[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Aug 6 10:43:33 UTC 2010


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=601577

--- Comment #21 from Till Maas <opensource at till.name> 2010-08-06 06:43:32 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> OK, as Till suggested, the missing link gets created from spec.
> 
> -devel-subpackage requires the main package; main package contains COPYRIGHT
> etc.
> 
> 
> lockfile builds just one library (liblockfile.so)
> a link is generated to liblockfile.so.1.0 and a link to liblockfile.so.1

Actually the lib is liblockfile.so.1.0 and the two other files are symlinks.

> If I understand the packaging guide correctly,
> lockfile.so should go to -devel subpackage
> and versioned libs should go to -libs.
> 
> The -libs-subpackage would contain only 2 links to lockfile.so 
> and should require -devel subpackage. This wouldn't make sense.
> 
> Where should I place liblockfile and its links?
> Currently, they are packed in -devel

Since the library seems to be build now properly, the package should be named
back to "liblockfile", the liblockfile.so.1.0 file, the liblockfile.so.1
symlink, the binary and the man1 manpage(s) go into the main package. The .so
symlink, the man3 manpage(s) and the header files into the devel package.

Some more remarks:
- you can just use mkdir instead of %{__mkdir} 
- %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/debug should not be needed
- the spec is more readable if you do not use just plain globbings like
"%{_bindir}/*" but use one entry for each binary. This way you will also catch
changes there. For the manpages it is helpful to use "*" instead of ".gz" as a
suffix, because the manpages might be compressed somehow else in the future.

-- 
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.



More information about the package-review mailing list